[LAU] [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]

[Cesare Marilungo]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 15:56:24 you wrote:
>   
>> drew Roberts wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 12:46:59 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>>>       
>>>> 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? What can I do now?
>>>>>
>>>>> -c.
>>>>>           
>>>> I received a mail from opsound. It seems that the license has always
>>>> been by-sa.
>>>>         
>> First, let me state once again that it's not that I've changed my mind
>> and it's not Opsound.org folks fault, either. I made a mistake and I'm
>> trying to solve the issue.
>>     
>
> I think I have the events sorted at this point. The consequences and the 
> tricky bits? I don't know.
>   
:-)
>>> I was just researching that for you...
>>>
>>> I went to the wayback machine.
>>>
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20030312104735/www.opsound.org/opsound.html
>>>
>>> That is the earliest page I could get to. Apr 07, 2003
>>>       
>> Yes, I aready checked on the wayback machine.
>>
>>     
>>> I has been straight BY-SA since then.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Most websites that host music don't require any license at all. You just
>>>> have to be the copyright holder and you must agree to let them publish
>>>> your music on their website. Other sites, like Jamendo, let you choose
>>>> which cc license you want to use.
>>>>
>>>> Probably, when I submitted my tracks it wasn't clear enough (at least to
>>>> me) that the music should be licensed that way.
>>>>         
>>> So, it may be that those tracks are BY-SA and you may not be able to do
>>> much about it as far as people who already have them go.
>>>       
>> This is true for those who acquired the tracks before today.
>>     
>
> Or for those who get them from those people. If anyone has a valid BY-SA 
> license from you, the cat is out of the bag so to speak.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
>
> "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, 
> Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
> perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise 
> the rights in the Work as stated below:"
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
>
> "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, 
> Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
> perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise 
> the rights in the Work as stated below:"
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, 
> Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
> perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise 
> the rights in the Work as stated below:"
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
>
> "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, 
> Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
> perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise 
> the rights in the Work as stated below:"
>
> If you have given out a BY-SA license to anyone, it is perpetual as I get 
> things.
>
> And when they pass on cpoies, the license passes with it as I understand 
> things.
Not necessarily, see below.
>   
>> Now I 
>> removed my page at opsound.org and everywhere else (and in particular on
>> my own website, where the tracks are physically hosted) the license for
>> these tracks has always been by-nc-nd.
>>
>> So, if somebody wants to use these tracks for commercial purposes he
>> should either consider them to be licensed as non-commercial or he
>> should prove he acquired the tracks from Opsound in the period in which
>> they were there with that particular license.
>>     
>
> Or from someone who got it from them during that time.
>
> And even that is perhaps.
>   
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can probably use them 
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is not 
transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from these 
people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one wouldn't 
been able to license things with many different licenses. Am I wrong?

I've found a blog post about these kind of issue:

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-profit.html

Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
>   
>> By the way, how you can 
>> prove such thing?
>>     
>
> People do different things. Some take screen shots. You are on the Linux Audio 
> Users mailing list. How do you prove you have rights to GPL and BSD code? How 
> does one prove that someone didn;t mistakenly license their program under the 
> GPL when they had intended it to be shareware? If someone decides to not 
> distribute their program under the GPL anymore, how are you going to prove 
> you got it when it was under the GPL? The problems are similar.
>   
I don't know, that's why I'm asking for clues. :-)
>   
>> If I want to use somebody else's work for a commercial 
>> purpose, and I see that his work is published on a website under a
>> creative commons non non-commercial license, I would ask for a signed
>> piece of paper that states so, so that I have a proof I can show in the
>> case I get sued.
>>     
>
> How do you see a BY-SA license causing you trouble with these tracks? It may 
> be that those things you are worried about are unlikely to happen.
>   
I'm not worried about what one could do. I just don't want to relicense 
these tracks on all the places that hosts them. I don't want to confuse 
people by having different licenses for different tracks. Moreover, two 
of these tracks are taken from two different albums.

At this point, I'm considering relicensing all my music under the by-sa 
license, but I'm not sure yet.

It's too much hassle for having submitted these tracks on a website with 
an unclear (at least to me) policy. I haven't signed an agreement or 
anything there. I just upload a bunch of tracks since I thought (and I 
still believe) it was a nice initiative (I mean, a website that hosts 
exclusively cc-licensed music) and I wanted to promote my music there.


>> IANAL, and of course I'm not sure about this. But this is my understanding.
>>
>>     
>>> However, just FYI and the information of any else in a similar boat.
>>>
>>> If someone wants to include your BY-SA music in a film or video, the film
>>> or video has to use the BY-SA license as well. If they are unwilling to
>>> make the film BY-SA, then you can get paid for an lsternate license just
>>> like someone who wanted to use an NC track or even an ARR work.
>>>
>>> Again, not legal advice, but look into the workings for yourself if you
>>> are interested.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Anyway, sorry for the noise.
>>>>
>>>> -c.
>>>>         
>>> all the best,
>>>
>>> drew
>>>
>>>       
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
>
>
>
>   
Thanks for your help.

Best,

-c.


-- 
www.cesaremarilungo.com