On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:50:14 +0200, Michael Verdi 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are 
> free to
> use my work commercially only when they use the work in it's unaltered
> entirety, for example, a compilation DVD or revlog on a site with
> advertising. Also they have to give attribution and make clear the terms 
> of
> this license. So if you bought a DVD with some of my videoblogs included 
> on
> it you would know that they were available for free on my site. It would 
> be
> up to the consumer to decide if the extra value of the compilation DVD 
> was
> worth the cost.

That depends. There are many kinds of Share-Alike licenses.

If you tack on the Attribution clause (so a by-sa license) then, yes, any 
reproduction would have to include your name, url and so forth.

If you tack on the no-derrivatives clause (a nd-sa license) then, yes, 
your work would have to be reproduced in it's entirety (providing use is 
not covered by Fair Use). Otherwise it doesn't have to (leaving it out is 
how you make your work remixable).

Of course you can mix and get a by-nd-sa license, and a by-nd-nc-sa 
license if people can't make money off your work.

I personally hate the Share-Alike license type. It makes reusing really 
hard because I can't take Person A's by-sa photo and mix with Person B's 
nc-sa photo.

--
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to