<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa?
-- Enric
>
> --
> 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
- 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.
