Tesla Coil wrote:
>
> On 19 May 1999 Paul Winkler replied to my post:
>
> >> Would the entire production, be it a commercial or movie,
> >> need to be copylefted for the material to be used?
> >
> > I would think the answer is yes. If a film includes your song, it
> > would fall under this part of the GPL:
> > [GPL section 0]
> > This applies even if there's only thirty seconds of your song,
> > or a modified version of it, in a 90-minute film.
>
> How do you interpret the last three paragraphs of section 2 in
> this context? Doesn't this lend to a legal paradox in which the
> ninety minute film may be distributed in two forms, copylefted
> and copyrighted, identical but for including and not including the
> thirty seconds of copylefted music? "The whole of this film is
> GPL, except for the 99.8% of it which is copyrighted." *_*
INteresting question...
I don't think there's a paradox at all. If the film company wishes to
include the GPL'ed song, they MUST GPL their entire film. Just like, if
Microsoft wanted to distribute "MS Emacs" based on GNU Emacs code, they
would have to GPL the entire thing, or they'd be in violation of the
GPL. (Though there's no reason they couldn't write and copyright, say, a
bunch of elisp files intended to be used with Emacs...)
I believe you're talking about this part of the GPL:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it."
Think of it this way:
--If the film including the copylefted song is distributed on one
videotape, the whole must be copylefted.
--If the film is distributed without the song, it may be copyrighted.
--If the film is distributed in three videotapes-- 1) the part before
the song comes in, 2) the part containing the song, 3) the part after --
then parts 1 and 3 may be copyrighted, and part 2 must be copylefted.
If the film company attempts to distribute the film containing the song
under non-GPL terms, they have violated the GPL and it _should_ be
possible to bring them to court. The court would have the task of
deciding which license applies, since GPL contradicts the usual "all
rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in
part, in any form".
You might be able to make a case that distributing bootleg copies of
that film (under the terms of the GPL) is now legal, since by including
GPL'ed material they have implicitly GPL'ed their film. THat would be
cool, but intuitively it sounds like a long shot.
I think there would be a stronger case that you should be able to force
the film company to cease distributing the film as long as it contains
the song.
-----------
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program."
In other words, I may do whatever I like with my own work, except
copyright someone else's copylefted work.
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License."
Among other things, this would make it perfectly legal for someone to
commercially release a CD or tape (or vinyl!) anthology of music which
included copylefted songs. What this last paragraph says is that doing
so does NOT cause any included copyrighted songs to become copylefted,
nor vise-versa. And they would have no recourse against "bootleggers"
(unless they bootlegged some copyrighted material as well).
> Not trying to be polemical, just uncertain of the implications.
Certainly don't take my word as gospel! A good copyright attorney should
have a better understanding of this stuff... but then, to my knowledge,
the GPL's never been tested in court, so it's all kind of hypothetical!
I just thought of something else. Usually on recordings, there are _two_
kinds of copyright. There's the "performance" rights, meaning the rights
to the sonic recording captured on the record. Then there's the
"publishing" rights, meaning the rights to the lyrics, chords, rhythms,
etc. that make up the song. This opens up a whole other can of worms
for copyleftist artists to think about: How do you protect your
GPL-style rights for both performance and publishing? What should the
copyright notice look like?
Usually it's like this:
All songs (c) (p) 1997 Fascist Records, Inc. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized duplication is a violation of god, country, and mom.
What does one say instead? SOmething like:
All songs (c) (p) 1999 Free Music Freaks Unlimited. All rights reserved,
except as specified otherwise in the GNU Public License version 2.0. See
blah blah blah for details...
--
------------------- paul winkler --------------------
slinkP arts: music, sound, illustration, web design, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.com/~slinkP
=========================================================
