What does NC means?

This part of the thread "What does NC means?" has
become quite OT for
the community list, it's somewhat more on topic for the
license list,
which is why I moved it here. I've edited the post a bit and
only
bothered to include parts that might be of some general
interest.

drew Roberts skrev:
> On Monday 17 September 2007 11:39 am, Peter Brink
wrote:
[large snip]>
>> An adaptation, on the other hand, is an example of
an 
>> _dependent_ copyright. Do note that in Europe, as
opposed to the US, the
>> creator of an adaptation is the sole copyright
holder of the rights to
>> the adaptation. He do need permission from the
copyright holder of the
>> work that has been adapted when he wants to publish
his adaptation.
> 
> So the European BY-SA licenses grant this permission on
the condition that the 
> new work is BY-SA?

Yes, but (sadly) in many cases it's not mentioned that one
does not need
any permission to create an adaptation only to publish it.

> 
> How do they get an independant work to be BY-SA? Refuse
permission to even 
> copy unless the related work is BY-SA? Or does the
license just choose not to 
> address this?

Independent works are not included in the scope of the
license (as they
are the property of their creator and no one else).

>> An arrangement can be said to express the same
ideas that are expressed
>> in the score but with different means. 
> 
> Would different notation be enough to be different
means?
> 

Sorry - bad choice of words on my behalf.

What I meant was that a music score expresses an idea with
one set of
tools (notation generally), while an arrangement uses other
tools. An
arrangement is more of an expression of _how_ to express
something than
an direct expression _of_ something.

A different notation (I take it that you mean that you would
use a
different notation system to express the same sounds) would
not do. Such
a would in most cases just be a copy.

To put it differently. Assume that A is translating a scene
from a novel
written in Japanese by X to English. The scene is set in the
living room
of a small flat in a large Japanese city. The characters are
a small
girl and her beloved puppy. The girl's name is
"Miko" and the puppy is
called "Li". Anyone is obviously free to express
these ideas. Such
expressions are free and independent works. But if A is
including every
single detail found in the Japanese text and faithfully
translates the
descriptions in Japanese to English, trying the express the
very same
ideas using the very same methods but expressed in English
instead of
Japanese, then A's text would be an adaptation of X's text.
X cannot
deny A the right to do the translation but A needs X's
permission in
order to publish the text.

If the two texts would be read out loud only those who
understands both
English and Japanese would realise that texts where the
same. To someone
who neither understands English nor Japanese there would be
no way of
knowing that the two texts where the same, in fact to such
persons the
texts would appear to be two different works because the
sounds the
texts produce when being read out loud would be completely
different.

Now let us return to the case with two different notations
expressing
the same music score. If one would let two musicians play
the piece of
music, one using the original set of notes and the other
using the
"translated" set, everyone would hear that it's
the same piece of music
that is being played. Because of this an transformation of a
score of
music from one notation to another is not an adaptation it's
a copy.

An adaptation "contains" another work (it
incorporates recognisable
elements of the original work) but is also clearly a work in
it's own
right. When there is no difference at all between two works,
one of them
has to be presumed to be a copy of the other.

[snip]

>>>
>>>> The performing artist gets a independent
performance neighbouring right
>>>> (which is not a work) if the set of works
are publicly performed.
>>> Performed? zEven if it is not fixed? And in the
US, doesn't this work get
>>> a (P) when fixed?
>> Fixation is not an requirement under the Berne
convention...
> 
> So, in Europe, every water cooler conversation that is
original is 
> copyrighted?

The concept of "originality" is another of these
concepts we use in
copyright law that differs across the globe. For something
to be
copyright protected that something must be an expression
that is the
result of a human beings individual personal creation. The
question then
is - when is something an individual personal creation?
Obviously the
style used; the time or money invested; or the data, ideas
or thought
used when creating the expression falls outside the
copyright. They are
either not an expression or are not created. To answer the
question of
when an expression is considered an individual personal
creation you
have to turn to the lawmakers comments and to case law. The
lawmaker has
stated that an expression must reach a certain (unspecified)
level of
originality - or to put it differently: it must not be
trivial.
Here in Sweden our Supreme court has created an help-rule,
it goes like
this: an expression is not copyrightable if the probability
of someone
independently double-creating the expression is not
improbable. That is
- if the probability of independent double-creation is large
then the
expression is not original enough. Similar methods are used
(I'm sure)
in other parts of Europe.

So - no not every water cooler conversation is copyrighted
in Europe,
because such conversations are not original.

[snip]

>>>> There is no requirement of
>>>> originality. This is thus _not_ a copyright
(since a copyrightable work
>>>> needs to be original). The duration of the
right is 50 years counting
>>>> from the publication date. The producer
needs to secure a permission to
>>>> make the recording from the copyright
holder of the work being recorded.
> 
> How do they figure there is no originality in making a
recording?

A recording only record something. It's like an non-artistic
photograph.
The camera just records something without any creative input
from the
human being who presses the trigger.


/Peter Brink



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

On Wednesday 19 September 2007 04:54 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> This part of the thread "What does NC means?"
has become quite OT for
> the community list, it's somewhat more on topic for the
license list,
> which is why I moved it here. I've edited the post a
bit and only
> bothered to include parts that might be of some general
interest.
>
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Monday 17 September 2007 11:39 am, Peter Brink
wrote:
>
> [large snip]>
>
> >> An adaptation, on the other hand, is an
example of an
> >> _dependent_ copyright. Do note that in Europe,
as opposed to the US, the
> >> creator of an adaptation is the sole copyright
holder of the rights to
> >> the adaptation. He do need permission from the
copyright holder of the
> >> work that has been adapted when he wants to
publish his adaptation.
> >
> > So the European BY-SA licenses grant this
permission on the condition
> > that the new work is BY-SA?
>
> Yes, but (sadly) in many cases it's not mentioned that
one does not need
> any permission to create an adaptation only to publish
it.
>
> > How do they get an independant work to be BY-SA?
Refuse permission to
> > even copy unless the related work is BY-SA? Or
does the license just
> > choose not to address this?
>
> Independent works are not included in the scope of the
license (as they
> are the property of their creator and no one else).
>
> >> An arrangement can be said to express the same
ideas that are expressed
> >> in the score but with different means.
> >
> > Would different notation be enough to be different
means?
>
> Sorry - bad choice of words on my behalf.
>
> What I meant was that a music score expresses an idea
with one set of
> tools (notation generally), while an arrangement uses
other tools. An
> arrangement is more of an expression of _how_ to
express something than
> an direct expression _of_ something.
>
> A different notation (I take it that you mean that you
would use a
> different notation system to express the same sounds)
would not do. Such
> a would in most cases just be a copy.

That is what I meant, something along the lines of ABC
notation, standard 
notation, etc.
>
> To put it differently. Assume that A is translating a
scene from a novel
> written in Japanese by X to English. The scene is set
in the living room
> of a small flat in a large Japanese city. The
characters are a small
> girl and her beloved puppy. The girl's name is
"Miko" and the puppy is
> called "Li". Anyone is obviously free to
express these ideas. Such
> expressions are free and independent works. But if A is
including every
> single detail found in the Japanese text and faithfully
translates the
> descriptions in Japanese to English, trying the express
the very same
> ideas using the very same methods but expressed in
English instead of
> Japanese, then A's text would be an adaptation of X's
text. X cannot
> deny A the right to do the translation but A needs X's
permission in
> order to publish the text.
>
> If the two texts would be read out loud only those who
understands both
> English and Japanese would realise that texts where the
same. To someone
> who neither understands English nor Japanese there
would be no way of
> knowing that the two texts where the same, in fact to
such persons the
> texts would appear to be two different works because
the sounds the
> texts produce when being read out loud would be
completely different.
>
> Now let us return to the case with two different
notations expressing
> the same music score. If one would let two musicians
play the piece of
> music, one using the original set of notes and the
other using the
> "translated" set, everyone would hear that
it's the same piece of music
> that is being played. Because of this an transformation
of a score of
> music from one notation to another is not an adaptation
it's a copy.

Fine, but doesn't this shoot down your "arrangement is
an independant work" 
theory? If a band plays differnet arrangments of the same
song, will people 
not know it is the same song?

Perhaps it would help if you could point to public domain or
Free licensed 
examples of words, score, and arrangements?
>
> An adaptation "contains" another work (it
incorporates recognisable
> elements of the original work) but is also clearly a
work in it's own
> right. When there is no difference at all between two
works, one of them
> has to be presumed to be a copy of the other.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>> The performing artist gets a
independent performance neighbouring
> >>>> right (which is not a work) if the set
of works are publicly
> >>>> performed.
> >>>
> >>> Performed? zEven if it is not fixed? And
in the US, doesn't this work
> >>> get a (P) when fixed?
> >>
> >> Fixation is not an requirement under the Berne
convention...
> >
> > So, in Europe, every water cooler conversation
that is original is
> > copyrighted?
>
> The concept of "originality" is another of
these concepts we use in
> copyright law that differs across the globe. For
something to be
> copyright protected that something must be an
expression that is the
> result of a human beings individual personal creation.
The question then
> is - when is something an individual personal creation?
Obviously the
> style used; the time or money invested; or the data,
ideas or thought
> used when creating the expression falls outside the
copyright. They are
> either not an expression or are not created. To answer
the question of
> when an expression is considered an individual personal
creation you
> have to turn to the lawmakers comments and to case law.
The lawmaker has
> stated that an expression must reach a certain
(unspecified) level of
> originality - or to put it differently: it must not be
trivial.
> Here in Sweden our Supreme court has created an
help-rule, it goes like
> this: an expression is not copyrightable if the
probability of someone
> independently double-creating the expression is not
improbable. That is
> - if the probability of independent double-creation is
large then the
> expression is not original enough. Similar methods are
used (I'm sure)
> in other parts of Europe.
>
> So - no not every water cooler conversation is
copyrighted in Europe,
> because such conversations are not original.

Some may be though. Right? Or wrong?
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>> There is no requirement of
> >>>> originality. This is thus _not_ a
copyright (since a copyrightable
> >>>> work needs to be original). The
duration of the right is 50 years
> >>>> counting from the publication date.
The producer needs to secure a
> >>>> permission to make the recording from
the copyright holder of the work
> >>>> being recorded.
> >
> > How do they figure there is no originality in
making a recording?
>
> A recording only record something. It's like an
non-artistic photograph.
> The camera just records something without any creative
input from the
> human being who presses the trigger.

Perhaps for a simple recording, but if you are recording a
band live, and 
making decisions on the faders, and perhaps eq, and effects
in real time, 
there can be a good amount of creative input involved. Does
your law over 
there deny this?

Again, thanks for you time.
>
>
> /Peter Brink
>
>
all the best,

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