[LAU] [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Feb 21 11:06:49 EST 2008
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 10:58, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> Now that I think of it, the license I've always used to publish my stuff
> is by-nc-nd, not by-nc-sa. I don't remember now if the license at
> Opsound.org when I registered was nd (non-derivative) or sa
> (share-alike). If the latter is true, is has been a mistake from my side
> (probably I confused them or I didn't pay enough attention). But still,
> they removed the non-commercial clause.
> Anyway, do you think that - once I've succesfully had these tracks
> removed from these tracks - I can keep the by-nc-nd license everywhere
> else? Or should I relicense those particular tracks under by-sa?
You can pull the tracks from opsound.
You can leave the works under whatever license you wish wherever else you put
The problem is when others who got the works from opsound under what they
thought to be a valid BY-SA license, puts those works or derivatives of those
works elsewhere themselves under the BY-SA license.
I think it would be simplest to dual license those as BY-SA and your preferred
license and be done with it. Less future complications for you.
*** Warning... Perhaps take this with a grsin of salt. I may be being
too "loose" with this advice as BY-SA is my preferred license in the first
I have tried to take that into account though. What has happened. If it has
and was not a really big mistake on your part, should not have happened to
At issue is what to do now though. And I have tried to outline things a best
as I understand them and offer the best advice I can. (Certainly not legal
advice mind you.)
sorry for the delay, I sometimes send through the wrong account and get
all the best,
> Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> > drew Roberts wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:50:03 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> >>> Here's the story: I published some tracks of mine at opsound.org. At
> >>> the time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is
> >>> the same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've
> >>> put my stuff.
> >>> Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
> >>> As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
> >>> opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
> >>> Could they do this?
> >> No, they can't, unless perhaps theri TOS allows for it. I kind of doubt
> >> it.
> >> I run into the opposite problem all the time in places.
> >> I use BY-SA for my works. I often find the licenses reset to traditional
> >> copyright ARR notices.
> >> I think this happens by mistake, but it is a big problem. So far, the
> >> works have been pretty much all mine. But what happens if someone comes
> >> along and finds a work of mine built on their BY-SA work and claiming
> >> ARR?
> >> I then have to go back and re-do the licenses again.
> >>> What can I do now?
> >> Can you go and reset the licenses at this point? On opsound?
> > I can't. Meanwhile I have deleted my page there.
> >> As for the other sites, contact them and tell them of the problem?
> > I'll try to do this but I'm not sure if it will work.
> > There are many sites that crawled my tracks. Some of them send ringtones
> > of them, too. Of course most of these are illegal. I don't have the
> > money/time/patience to go after them.
> > But I trusted Opsound.
> >> Rsign yourself to letting those songs become dual licensed BY-SA your
> >> preferred license and try to avoid the problem you have in the future?
> >>> -c.
> >> all the best,
> > Thank you for your suggestions.
> > Best,
> > -c.
> >> drew
More information about the Linux-audio-user