Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

How much weight does the "nd" clause of a CC licence really have

Expand Messages
  • Frank Carver
    I ve seen a certain amount of discussion of the importance (or not) of the non-commercial flag in a Creative Commons licence. I still have reservations, but
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I've seen a certain amount of discussion of the importance (or not) of
      the "non-commercial" flag in a Creative Commons licence. I still have
      reservations, but that's a separate issue. What I'm interested in at
      the moment is how important people actually think the "nd" ("no
      derived works") flag is.

      How closely would you check the exact licence terms before
      incorporating, remixing or quoting another "creative commons"
      videoblog?

      This came to mind when watching a recent "RichardShow.com" videoblog
      where he re-posts his question and John Edwards' response. I recall
      noting that John Edwards' videoblog posts are under a by-nc-nd/2.0
      licence, and Richard put a by-nc/2.0 licence on his.

      As it stands, this post seems OK, as it is literally just a re-post of
      an unaltered movie from the oneamericacommittee.com website (actually,
      it just refers to the same URL).

      It's pretty obvious it would be against the licence terms to create a
      "new work" by chopping up John Edwards' answer to make it appear he is
      saying something else. That's patently the intention, and it's a
      sensible one.

      Note, though, that this would also seem to expressly prevent other
      videobloggers from quoting part of his answer in another movie.

      Before you ask, I have read the creative commons rules for this
      licence, and it's important to also note that there is a particular
      exemption in the "nd" clause which states:

      "a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
      Derivative Work for the purpose of this License"

      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode

      So it gets more tricky. Apparently, creating a new collection movie by
      adding stuff before or after without changing the original is OK.
      Presumably adding a "header" or "footer" to the movie, or quoting it
      wholesale in the middle of a different rant would _not_ count as a
      "derivative work". This opens up plenty of opportunities for "spin".

      Now it gets really tricky. Richard has released his question under a
      licence which _does_ allow derivative works. So would it still be
      acceptable to chop up Richard's question and tag John Edwards' answer
      to the end? Does John Edwards' "nd" apply to the whole movie including
      Richard's bit, or just to his own words?

      I don't have any particular desire to do any of this, but I can't help
      feeling that the community ought to hash out some sort of "Common
      Sense" rules for this stuff before software and custom lead to a habit
      of quoting.

      Thoughts?

      --
      Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk
    • Markus Sandy
      i often look for music for use in vids on archive.org i respect nd but wished people would use it less bigger issue: *most* submissions don t bother with
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        i often look for music for use in vids on archive.org
        i respect "nd"
        but wished people would use it less

        bigger issue: *most* submissions don't bother with licensing metadata at all

        Frank Carver wrote:

        >I've seen a certain amount of discussion of the importance (or not) of
        >the "non-commercial" flag in a Creative Commons licence. I still have
        >reservations, but that's a separate issue. What I'm interested in at
        >the moment is how important people actually think the "nd" ("no
        >derived works") flag is.
        >
        >How closely would you check the exact licence terms before
        >incorporating, remixing or quoting another "creative commons"
        >videoblog?
        >
        >This came to mind when watching a recent "RichardShow.com" videoblog
        >where he re-posts his question and John Edwards' response. I recall
        >noting that John Edwards' videoblog posts are under a by-nc-nd/2.0
        >licence, and Richard put a by-nc/2.0 licence on his.
        >
        >As it stands, this post seems OK, as it is literally just a re-post of
        >an unaltered movie from the oneamericacommittee.com website (actually,
        >it just refers to the same URL).
        >
        >It's pretty obvious it would be against the licence terms to create a
        >"new work" by chopping up John Edwards' answer to make it appear he is
        >saying something else. That's patently the intention, and it's a
        >sensible one.
        >
        >Note, though, that this would also seem to expressly prevent other
        >videobloggers from quoting part of his answer in another movie.
        >
        >Before you ask, I have read the creative commons rules for this
        >licence, and it's important to also note that there is a particular
        >exemption in the "nd" clause which states:
        >
        > "a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
        > Derivative Work for the purpose of this License"
        >
        > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode
        >
        >So it gets more tricky. Apparently, creating a new collection movie by
        >adding stuff before or after without changing the original is OK.
        >Presumably adding a "header" or "footer" to the movie, or quoting it
        >wholesale in the middle of a different rant would _not_ count as a
        >"derivative work". This opens up plenty of opportunities for "spin".
        >
        >Now it gets really tricky. Richard has released his question under a
        >licence which _does_ allow derivative works. So would it still be
        >acceptable to chop up Richard's question and tag John Edwards' answer
        >to the end? Does John Edwards' "nd" apply to the whole movie including
        >Richard's bit, or just to his own words?
        >
        >I don't have any particular desire to do any of this, but I can't help
        >feeling that the community ought to hash out some sort of "Common
        >Sense" rules for this stuff before software and custom lead to a habit
        >of quoting.
        >
        >Thoughts?
        >
        >
        >


        --

        My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
        http://apperceptions.org
        http://spinflow.org
        http://spinsummer2005.blogspot.com
        http://spinsummer2005meetup.blogspot.com
        http://vloggercuewest.blogspot.com
      • ro9core
        ... I think we need quoting, its the next normal step in the process. Technology is just catching up to what we want to do. Stifling this by licensing idiocy
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Carver <frank@m...> wrote:

          > I don't have any particular desire to do any of this, but I can't help
          > feeling that the community ought to hash out some sort of "Common
          > Sense" rules for this stuff before software and custom lead to a habit
          > of quoting.

          I think we need quoting, its the next normal step in the process.
          Technology is just catching up to what we want to do.

          Stifling this by licensing idiocy is cutting ourselves off at the knees.

          Ro
        • Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
          On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:15:37 -0000, ro9core wrote ... Thankfully, you don t have to worry about licenses when you re quoting. The most restrictive license in
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 7, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:15:37 -0000, ro9core wrote
            > I think we need quoting, its the next normal step in the process.
            > Technology is just catching up to what we want to do.
            >
            > Stifling this by licensing idiocy is cutting ourselves off at the knees.

            Thankfully, you don't have to worry about licenses when you're quoting. The
            most restrictive license in the world can't prohibit quoting. The important
            things to remember are: 1) It's not a quote if you 'quote' an entire work
            and 2) Always provide attribution.

            - Andreas
            --
            <http://www.solitude.dk>
          • Stephanie Bryant
            You know, if anyone ever wants to use my weird vlog entries (the ones at Hold My Beer-- can t speak for any future works), you can just email me for
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              You know, if anyone ever wants to use my weird vlog entries (the ones
              at Hold My Beer-- can't speak for any future works), you can just
              email me for permission. I'll likely give it-- the "nd" to me just
              means "not without talking to me first, please."

              I know that's not easy when you're splicing stuff together in the heat
              of the moment, but I'll even put this out there for the members of
              this group: if you use my stuff and *don't* get permission in advance,
              I won't take you to court over it unless I object really strongly, and
              you don't take it down within 2 weeks after I ask you to.

              --Stephanie

              --
              Stephanie Bryant
              mortaine@...
              http://www.mortaine.com
            • Richard
              First of all, Frank, thanks for bringing up this very important point and, in fact, just to try and be more clear I was motivated to change the post to add
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                First of all, Frank, thanks for bringing up this very important point
                and, in fact, just to try and be more clear I was motivated to change
                the post to add something about the nature of the copyright and I
                would welcome feedback, as to whether or not this sounds accurate

                http://www.richardshow.com/2005/07/john-edwards-answers-my-question.html

                Second, I was also motivated to add the creative commons icon linked
                to my license on my side bar to make it easier for people to know what
                sort of license apply to MY video. I am, in fact, in the middle of
                trying to create a composite video with clips from other people's
                vlogs and I will try to pay special attention to the license, and ask
                permission if I don't see that derivative works are allowed - so this
                is a particularly good time, for me, that this point was brought up.

                ... thanks again for bringing up this important point Frank

                ... Richard


                On 7/7/05, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> wrote:
                > You know, if anyone ever wants to use my weird vlog entries (the ones
                > at Hold My Beer-- can't speak for any future works), you can just
                > email me for permission. I'll likely give it-- the "nd" to me just
                > means "not without talking to me first, please."
                >
                > I know that's not easy when you're splicing stuff together in the heat
                > of the moment, but I'll even put this out there for the members of
                > this group: if you use my stuff and *don't* get permission in advance,
                > I won't take you to court over it unless I object really strongly, and
                > you don't take it down within 2 weeks after I ask you to.
                >
                > --Stephanie
                >
                > --
                > Stephanie Bryant
                > mortaine@...
                > http://www.mortaine.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >


                --
                Richard
                http://www.richardshow.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.