Like Josh IANAL, and you should contact a real lawyer for legal advice.

> 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?

If you're using the music under Fair Use, then you're in the okay. If your  
use is not covered by Fair USe, you have no rights to state a new license  
for the music track.

> 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?

I haven't re-read the license text, but off the top of my head I'd say  
you're right.

> 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?

Well, the Copyright statement *in* the software says "All Rights Reserved"  
and I imagine that copyright statement takes priority over any other  
(because it's the one actually attached to the work). So right now you  
can't do anything.

- Andreas
<URL: >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to