On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:53:05 +0200, Michael Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to
> modify
> cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing
> media
> from that host? If a license can state whether or not it is allowed,
> then
> maybe that would streamline things?
I was tagged, but I'm not lawyer (just vocal). Charles has got it right.
This is already covered in the CC licenses. All CC licenses grant rights
to make copies and distribute those copies - it's the whole point. Then
there are the two limitations. The non-commercial clause limits who can
make the copies and no-derrivs limits derrivative works (straight copies
are still fine). So there's no reason to ammend the licenses.
I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a derrivative
work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a derrivative
work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO.
I was interpretting the 'translation' part of the definition. I understood (incorrectly maybe) that a translation was a derivative. Isn't transcoding a translation?
--
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Use
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service .
--
~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
