Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] FW: [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] FW: [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved
  • Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:34:08 +0000

On 14/12/2012 20:08, P. J. McDermott wrote:
On 2012-12-14 06:30, P-M wrote:
From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] on behalf of P. J. McDermott
[pjm AT nac.net]
Sent: 14 December 2012 06:29
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved


Here I assumed that the image would likely be cropped, partially
covered, or otherwise not "included in its entirety in unmodified form".

If Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. can manage to include an image in a greeting
card with no such modifications, then yes, CC BY-SA would be
insufficient to prevent the use, since (at least under U.S. case law)
the greeting card is not a derivative work (as you note).

I'm not sure that simply cropping an image or layering Happy Birthday over it is going to create an adaptation. I mean if Hallmark cards take a work by Claude Monet and crop it square do they get a new copyright in the crop? If they layer "Best Wishes" over it do they have a copyright in that?


Simply including a song as part of an advertisment does not
create an adapation of the song.

Version 3.0 Unported of the CCPL suite, § 1(a):

For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work,
performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-
relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an
Adaptation for the purpose of this License.

CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Draft 2 § 1(a) have similar wording.

Even without that text, an Adaptation of the song is made unless the
song is already about 30 seconds long. The song would most likely have
to be shortened, if nothing else, for use in an advertisement.


How about a soft rock song playing over a car advert where the c ar is driving through some landscape, or a snippet of some famous song used as a politician's campaign theme. These wouldn't normally be classed as 'synching', so I'm pretty sure that what is being talked about here are more inline with mashups like Blair/Bush thing that Lesig is so fond of.


Simply using the lyrics does not create
an adaption of the lyrics.

If by this you mean to refer to the example of the band performing in a
club, then you are correct. It is not a derivative work (unless the
song is altered), and I did not argue that.



I was thinking more along the lines of using the lyrics, or a verse as part of the greetings in a card.



Rather, it is a public performance, which need not be licensed to any
audience members in any particular way. This is why I said the
licensing choice doesn't affect the band, except of course for the issue
of cover charges. If the band receives such "private monetary
compensation" for their public performance of the song, then the NC
licenses would arguably not allow this use.

Simply reprinting a story does not create an
adaption of the story.

You are correct. It seems I did jump to an inaccurate conclusion in
considering the local community publication example. If the story is
reprinted "in its entirety in unmodified form", then the publication is
indeed a Collection rather than an Adaptation (in CCPL 3.0 parlance).


I'm not at all sure that something that isn't printed in its 'entirety' is a necessary prerequisite for an adaptation. When people get sued for ripping off significant snippets from news articles they are sued for copying not for for making derivatives.


Either way, the effect is mostly the same, though. Under the terms of
CC BY-SA, the local community group can include the story in their
publication and charge for copies; and if they don't modify the story,
they don't even have to license the publication to readers in any
particular way.

But under the terms of CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-SA, the rights to reproduce
and distribute copies of the story in a larger publication in exchange
for "private financial compensation", with or without modification to
the story, are reserved for the story's copyright holder(s).



This is the crux: we understand that the NC license denies more than we would like, but we aren't using the NC license to deny use by those groups we have no problem with, we are using it to deny free use by those that we disapprove of. We understand its limitations only too well.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page