On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:53:05 +0200, Michael Sullivan 

> 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.

Fireant Individual Use


http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com


Reply via email to