choosing a new license at freesound, please help

Hi Bram,

Bram  Freesound wrote:
>  We know Sampling+ is no good for
samples/soundfx/field-recordings etc
>  so we are looking into choosing a new set of
license(s).
>
>  Now there is one big problem: none of the legal code
in either
>  sampling+, by or by-nc is particularly well suited for
sound effects.
>  A sound-effect is almost invariably used as a
"whole work" in the
>  derived work. Hence the definition of "derived
work" is a bit strange
>  when talking about "samples".

"NC" is reviled by a lot of "free
culture" / "free software" people. 
Some of us feel that Creative Commons should deprecate it
entirely.  In 
any case, I think it's a disaster for your project.  I think
you should 
seriously reconsider the implications of using any
"non-commercial" 
license, because such restrictions are "non-free"
and severely limit any 
practical applications of the content on your site (for
example, an NC 
clause prohibits their use in any GPL-licensed or
By-SA-licensed 
free-software game).

NC is a loose-cannon, because it is so broadly-defined.  NC
means you 
can't include a work using the samples on a website that has
Google 
ad-sense ads to pay for the bandwidth. NC means, no way
it'll ever be 
included in any Linux or free software distribution. NC
means it's just 
"non-free" as far as most "free culture"
advocates are concerned.

I also think that, because of the limits imposed on
copyright by "fair 
use"/"fair dealing", and the limits due to
"derivation" and "collection" 
of the works, such licenses may offer a false-promise to
contributors 
(make them think they can control uses which they can't --
and possibly 
which no license can control).

ShareAlike is a far better option if you want to preserve
the "freeness" 
of the work.

"Sampling" or "Sampling Plus" is a
problem primarily because these 
aren't licenses *for samples* but for *work from which
samples can be 
taken*.  (The "Sampling" licenses are quite
restrictive as regards the 
original work used as a whole, and probably rule out any use
you'd 
likely be interested in).

Presumeably your fear of "By" is that it might
lead to "exploitation" of 
some kind, though I think that for sound samples, this is
perhaps a bit 
misguided.  In fact, "By" is probably a very good
option.

"By-SA" (that is, "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike") is probably 
the best bet for many people.

This license would mean that modified samples derived from
samples on 
FreeSound would also have to be licensed "By-SA",
as would the original 
samples when included in some work.  (This is a Good Thing
in terms of 
collaborative leverage).

IMHO, it would have little to no effect on what sorts of
works the 
samples could be used in, which is a Good Thing (consistent
with 
intuitive concept of "freedom").

 >What are the
>  repercussions of using these various licenses for
derived work (and
>  what exactly does one call derived work of a 50
millisecond 'bass
>  drum hit' sample?)

My (not a lawyer) opinion is that a remix of the 'bass drum
hit' sample, 
to alter its sound (say move it up an octave, stretch it
out, add echo, 
or etc) is a "derivative".

A musical performance made up of these samples (and probably
others) is 
a "collective work" in the terms used in the CC
licenses.

IMHO, this is still ambiguous, though. Other free licenses
(e.g. the 
GPL) might well extend the copyleft to the "collective
work" created 
with the samples.


I had a look at the thread.  One thing I find disturbing is
the number 
of people who appear to want to use their copyright as a
means to 
*suppress expression* with which they disagree.  IMHO, this
is an 
improper use of copyright in fundamental conflict with the
very idea of 
freedom, and I find it highly unethical.  At some level,
copyright is 
always in conflict with the ideal of the freedom of speech,
but this is 
a case of people expressly setting out to impede the freedom
of speech 
through the use of copyright law (we're more likely to
appreciate the 
unethicality of this practice when someone powerful like
Microsoft or 
Sony is the one handing out the gag orders, but it remains
unethical 
even when it's a "counter-culture little-guy"
doing it).

Also, in terms of implementation, if you intend to support
content with 
multiple licensing, make sure the search and contribution
interfaces 
make it easy to select by license. If you had both By and
By-NC content 
on your site, for example, I would routinely want to search
*only* By 
licensed works, because I won't use NC content.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses