Cheers for the cclarification, yes that makes sense, its amazing how quickly I get rusty on these things when I dont think about them for a few months.
In terms of how creative commons and other alternative licenses are progressing in terms of use in the videoblogging world, I expect one things thats olding it back is the number of people that ignore copyright of others work. Whats even worse is people mixing the two. Am I right to say that if someone uses copyrighted music in their videoblog, and then they use a creative comons license for their videoblog, its invalid? eg if I use copyrighted music and then give my videoblog away with derivatives permitted, or even redistribution permitted, the license wont stand up in court? Because I dont have the rights too the original work I used, I cant give those rights away to anyone else? Finally, what does it mean on the creative commons site when it says that: Every license: is not revocable Does this mean that if I accidentally publish a work with license that gives away more rights than I meant to, that it is too late to change it? Or at least too late to change it for people whove already used the work on the basis of the original license? Because for example its not true to say that fireant definately couldnt be rebranded without having the source code. There are sometimes other ways. If they accidentally put the derivatives allowed license on the site, when they meant not to allow derivatives, is it too late for them to prevent me from making fireant derivatives? I am not intending to do anything so nasty by the way, just wanting to understand the legalstuff once and for all. Cheers Steve of Elbows --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:25:23 +0200, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > The readme file for the fireant download mac version on your website, > > and it still says '⢠ANT is freeware. It will be open source.' > > What's worse is that the 'About FireANT' section in the Windows version > has no mention of Creative Commons at all. It says 'Copyright 2005 > ANTisNOTTV, All Rights Reserved'. That should be changed if FireANT is > licensed under Creative Commons. > > > Can anybody knowledgeable in license issues tell me whether the use of > > the copyright symbol on the 'about fireant' screen in mac version > > 1.0b3, contradicts in any way any of the other licensing stuff? > > It doesn't. You don't give away your copyright when you choose a CC > license. It is just that, a license. > > > To apply that point more generally, if I use a creative commons > > license for my videoblog, and I also put a copyright message on a > > title in the videoblog, is it a license mess and invalid combination? > > No. This is why you see the trademark 'Copyright 2005. Some Rights > Reserved' on CC licensed content. You don't give up all your copyrights - > you voluntarily give up *some* of your rights. > > - Andreas > -- > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
