Agreed, but this is a stipulation in the contract - that
time
synchronization will be treated as an Adaptation for
purposes of the
license - so what is creative and what isn't shouldn't
really impact
the result.
Industry lawyers, to my understanding, treat synch licensing
as a
special case of the reproduction right, although not always
explicitly. The reason time synchronization became
important was not
because it was particularly creative, but because there was
a need to
differentiate between reproductions of music onto
vinyl/tape/cd
(usually called mechanical licenses) and the more
specialized
reproductions onto the audio track of a movie. People saw
them as
different and were willing to negotiate different terms for
each.
As for the media translation, I think the only thing you
could do is
encode the audio with literally no video. I think AVI
supports this,
but I'm not sure about the others. I can imagine a few
scenarios
where this might be useful (portable media devices whose
"free" codec
support is limited to video), but generally it seems more
applicable
to encodings in new audio formats.
dp
On 4/11/07, Terry Hancock <hancock anansispaceworks.com>
wrote:
> Dana Powers wrote:
> > I honestly can't think of how you could digitally
combine a musical
> > work with a video without synching. Even the most
basic arrangement,
> > having both start simultaneously, seems to fit the
definition.
>
> You cannot combine an image into a text article in PDF
format without
> making a precise specification of its location on the
page. However, the
> PDF document, like the HTML page it could've been based
on, has been
> described as "a collection".
>
> The point is that the location of the image on the page
is not itself a
> creative part of the work. The fact that an automatic
typesetter
> actually had to place it *somewhere* doesn't constitute
synching.
>
> (IMHO, anyway, and based on previous posts by people
who evidently
> understand the law better than I do  ).
>
> I would imagine that the same situation applies to
video. Yes, there is
> *some* synch position of the sound with the video as a
technical result
> of changing the format of the data. However this is not
a creative
> decision, because there is no *meaningful*
synchronization of sound
> events to video events.
>
> Another thought experiment: I'm sure you've at least
once in your life
> set up your sound and television to show completely
unrelated sources
> (play a music album over the speakers, and have silent
video on the
> screen). What if you just recorded the result? Would
that be
> "synchronization", even though there was
absolutely no creative effort
> involved in choosing the timing relationship between
the two? IMHO, it
> would not be -- the mere mechanical synchronization
that results from
> recording a random, non-significant relation in time
should not be
> considered "synchronization".
>
> Of course, it would be difficult to prove this if there
is any
> meaningful video signal at all -- I would think that a
blank screen, or
> possibly a static image with a title card would be
about the only thing
> you could defend.
>
> Of course, IANAL, etc.
>
> But that's what it seems like would be necessary to be
consistent.
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
