Hello everyone,
I've been trying to hold out subscribing to cc-licenses
myself, but it
looks like it's really necessary now. Over at the Freesound
Project
we're in a bit of trouble:
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".
Also, sometimes a sample can be more than just a sample:
someone doing a
field recording of a street-organ is considered OK for
freesound, but
then we're talking about something rather different.
Anyway: Could someone more knowledgeable than me please do
an analysis
of using Sampling+, Attribution and Attribution-Noncomm in
the context
of sound samples (think < 1 minute sound effects you use
as building
blocks to create something else). 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?)
for those interested the related forum discussion -which is
attracting a
LOT of attention- is here:
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1209
It would be extra-super-great if someone from CC could jump
in once in a
while to shed some "legal light" on the points
raised, but I can
understand if this would be a problem.
thanks a lot,
- bram, the freesound project 
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|