Weak Copyleft for Cultural Works
Blaise Alleyne
I've recently adopted the CC BY-SA license for all on my music, but in
thinking through some scenarios I've begun to wonder whether a Lesser
GPL type license might be useful for particular scenarios, and if any
such license actually exists for cultural works (Creative Commons
doesn't seem to have one, despite their many licenses...).
The first example I considered was the use of one of my recordings in
a film... If a director was looking for a song to use in a single
scene of a full length film (say, much longer than the song itself, an
hour or more), it seems that the CC BY-SA license would require the
entire film to be released under the similar terms, if not the same
license. This seems like quite the practical barrier with the large
number of rights holders involved in such a film. It seems like it
would be a deterrent and a director would ultimately seek another song
or have to ask for permission (in which case, we still have a
permission culture, not a free one).
But, how would one distinguish between the use of a song in a film and
a music video? For a music video, when my song is the centre piece
(e.g. a program) and not something in the background (e.g. a library),
I'd like the full power of copyleft. Seems like maybe the grey area
here would make this distinction difficult...
The second example involves arrangements. I'm a songwriter, but I also
run an annual concert with a string ensemble for other songwriters in
which I compose string arrangements for their songs. I'd like to
release those arrangements under a free license so that they can make
use of them. However, it seems like a copyleft license like the CC BY-
SA would force them to release any recordings of the arrangements
under the same license. Though I'd love to encourage this, I'm not
sure that many of the songwriters would be willing to do that in the
immediate future... it's a bit of a jump to take, it takes time. I'd
be okay if just the arrangements were copyleft.
So, is there a LGPL equivalent for cultural works? Is there no weak
copyleft? Am left to make a decision between CC BY and CC BY-SA,
between copyleft or non-copyleft? Has this been discussed or
considered before? Is there something I'm missing?
Any advice would be appreciated. I'm much more in favour of a copyleft
license, but in some of these scenarios it may be a little too strong.
Thanks,
Blaise Alleyne
Rob Myers
> I've recently adopted the CC BY-SA license for all on my music, but in
> thinking through some scenarios I've begun to wonder whether a Lesser
> GPL type license might be useful for particular scenarios, and if any
> such license actually exists for cultural works (Creative Commons
> doesn't seem to have one, despite their many licenses...).
Copyleft licences apply to derivative works. There are two different
legal opinions in the US on the scope of derivative works. One says
that if (e.g.) an image is used to illustrate a page of text then the
result is a derivative. The other says that it isn't.
The FSF follow the former opinion, so with the FDL if you use an
FDL-licenced image on (e.g.) a Wikipedia page, the page is regarded as
a derivative of the image.
Creative Commons follow the second opinion, so if you use a BY-SA
licenced image in (e.g.) a proprietary web page, the page is not a
derivative of the image.
You'll notice that Creative Commons's position means that BY-SA is
already a kind of weak copyleft compared to the FDL.
But CC explicitly state that using music in a film creates a
derivative. So in the first case you are interested in they have made
BY-SA stronger.
> The first example I considered was the use of one of my recordings in
> a film... If a director was looking for a song to use in a single
> scene of a full length film (say, much longer than the song itself, an
> hour or more), it seems that the CC BY-SA license would require the
> entire film to be released under the similar terms, if not the same
> license. This seems like quite the practical barrier with the large
> number of rights holders involved in such a film. It seems like it
> would be a deterrent and a director would ultimately seek another song
> or have to ask for permission (in which case, we still have a
> permission culture, not a free one).
If we are looking at this as a matter of rights then it is a good
thing if the director makes their film copyleft.
Large numbers of rights holders are standard for a film and there's an
entire industry devoted to managing this. It is possible to make a
BY-SA film or TV series, but I admit that the inertia of the existing
rights ecosystem can be hard to deal with.
> But, how would one distinguish between the use of a song in a film and
> a music video? For a music video, when my song is the centre piece
> (e.g. a program) and not something in the background (e.g. a library),
> I'd like the full power of copyleft. Seems like maybe the grey area
> here would make this distinction difficult...
A licence could try to define "incidental inclusion" but I do think
this would be ripe for mis-use.
> The second example involves arrangements. I'm a songwriter, but I also
> run an annual concert with a string ensemble for other songwriters in
> which I compose string arrangements for their songs. I'd like to
> release those arrangements under a free license so that they can make
> use of them. However, it seems like a copyleft license like the CC BY-
> SA would force them to release any recordings of the arrangements
> under the same license. Though I'd love to encourage this, I'm not
> sure that many of the songwriters would be willing to do that in the
> immediate future... it's a bit of a jump to take, it takes time. I'd
> be okay if just the arrangements were copyleft.
That concert sounds really cool.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
Since the arrangement is a derivative of the song, the copyright will
belong to the songwriters unless they arrange otherwise with you.
So once you sort out the ownership of the copyright in the arrangement
you can arrange that the songwriters get the work under standard
copyright, you get it under BY-SA, and the string performers can
perform it under either. As long as the paperwork is clear this should
all be OK.
As for the string performers, they will need publicity for their live
performance services given the collapse in revenue of the classical
recording industry, so BY-SA of their performances of the arrangements
isn't such a bad idea. ;-)
> So, is there a LGPL equivalent for cultural works? Is there no weak
> copyleft? Am left to make a decision between CC BY and CC BY-SA,
> between copyleft or non-copyleft? Has this been discussed or
> considered before? Is there something I'm missing?
I don't think it's had much discussion. In most cases BY-SA is weak
copyleft, and usually on the cc lists people want stronger copyleft.
- Rob.
Benj. Mako Hill
> I've recently adopted the CC BY-SA license for all on my music, but in
> thinking through some scenarios I've begun to wonder whether a Lesser
> GPL type license might be useful for particular scenarios, and if any
> such license actually exists for cultural works (Creative Commons
> doesn't seem to have one, despite their many licenses...).
One thing you can do is write a little note next to wherever you
describe the licensing of your work that explains the situation. You
might say:
This work is available to anyone under CC BY-SA and you do not need to
ask permission to use or distribute it under the terms of that
license. Additionally, I'm often willing to freely license the work to
others under more permissive terms (i.e., in a non-copyleft movie or a
film). To ask about using my work in your project, send me an email at
whatever@wherever.
If your work becomes so popular that dealing with these case-by-case
becomes prohibitively difficult, you can find a better solution. That
would be a wonderful problem to have!
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
ma...@atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/
Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
Benj. Mako Hill
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Blaise Alleyne <ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've recently adopted the CC BY-SA license for all on my music, but in
> > thinking through some scenarios I've begun to wonder whether a Lesser
> > GPL type license might be useful for particular scenarios, and if any
> > such license actually exists for cultural works (Creative Commons
> > doesn't seem to have one, despite their many licenses...).
>
> Copyleft licences apply to derivative works. There are two different
> legal opinions in the US on the scope of derivative works. One says
> that if (e.g.) an image is used to illustrate a page of text then the
> result is a derivative. The other says that it isn't.
>
> The FSF follow the former opinion, so with the FDL if you use an
> FDL-licenced image on (e.g.) a Wikipedia page, the page is regarded as
> a derivative of the image.
>
> Creative Commons follow the second opinion, so if you use a BY-SA
> licenced image in (e.g.) a proprietary web page, the page is not a
> derivative of the image.
>
> You'll notice that Creative Commons's position means that BY-SA is
> already a kind of weak copyleft compared to the FDL.
>
> But CC explicitly state that using music in a film creates a
> derivative. So in the first case you are interested in they have made
> BY-SA stronger.
The way you have described this is misleading. The issue of what
constitutes a derivative work is a matter of unsettled law and not
something that either the FDL or BY-SA license addresses.
The issue is unsettled legally -- a few courts have made decisions that
contradict each other and most have not directly addressed this issue.
Lawyers for the FSF and CC have offered different legal opinions based
on the reading of an ambiguous record. Lawyers for both side have
suggested that their opinions, as counsel for the license author, are
unlikely to have any impact on any decision about the nature of the
license by a court.
So yes, BY-SA and GFDL are written by people with different opinions on
a legal concept not addressed in the next of the license. But that seems
very unlikely to change the legal reality of what constitues a
derivative of either in any particular context.
Rob Myers
> The way you have described this is misleading. The issue of what
> constitutes a derivative work is a matter of unsettled law and not
> something that either the FDL or BY-SA license addresses.
Yes you're right. I phrased that very badly. Sorry.
- Rob.
Mike Linksvayer
> The way you have described this is misleading. The issue of what
> constitutes a derivative work is a matter of unsettled law and not
> something that either the FDL or BY-SA license addresses.
>
> The issue is unsettled legally -- a few courts have made decisions that
> contradict each other and most have not directly addressed this issue.
>
> Lawyers for the FSF and CC have offered different legal opinions based
> on the reading of an ambiguous record. Lawyers for both side have
> suggested that their opinions, as counsel for the license author, are
> unlikely to have any impact on any decision about the nature of the
> license by a court.
>
> So yes, BY-SA and GFDL are written by people with different opinions on
> a legal concept not addressed in the next of the license. But that seems
> very unlikely to change the legal reality of what constitues a
> derivative of either in any particular context.
I think you're right about everything above, except I don't know that
lawyers for CC have ever offered a legal opinion on the matter. Lessig
(who of course is a law professor, but has never been counsel for CC)
made what looked to me like a pretty offhand comment on both the GFDL
and CC BY-SA at
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-April/001713.html
which conceivably could have led to the FSF a month later posting
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Benj. Mako Hill <ma...@atdot.cc> wrote:
> <quote who="Blaise Alleyne" date="Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 02:04:35AM -0700">
>> I've recently adopted the CC BY-SA license for all on my music, but in
>> thinking through some scenarios I've begun to wonder whether a Lesser
>> GPL type license might be useful for particular scenarios, and if any
>> such license actually exists for cultural works (Creative Commons
>> doesn't seem to have one, despite their many licenses...).
>
> One thing you can do is write a little note next to wherever you
> describe the licensing of your work that explains the situation. You
> might say:
>
> This work is available to anyone under CC BY-SA and you do not need to
> ask permission to use or distribute it under the terms of that
> license. Additionally, I'm often willing to freely license the work to
> others under more permissive terms (i.e., in a non-copyleft movie or a
> film). To ask about using my work in your project, send me an email at
> whatever@wherever.
>
> If your work becomes so popular that dealing with these case-by-case
> becomes prohibitively difficult, you can find a better solution. That
> would be a wonderful problem to have!
Great advice.
Mike
Benj. Mako Hill
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Benj. Mako Hill <ma...@atdot.cc> wrote:
> > <quote who="Blaise Alleyne" date="Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 02:04:35AM -0700">
> >> I've recently adopted the CC BY-SA license for all on my music, but in
> >> thinking through some scenarios I've begun to wonder whether a Lesser
> >> GPL type license might be useful for particular scenarios, and if any
> >> such license actually exists for cultural works (Creative Commons
> >> doesn't seem to have one, despite their many licenses...).
> >
> > One thing you can do is write a little note next to wherever you
> > describe the licensing of your work that explains the situation. You
> > might say:
> >
> > This work is available to anyone under CC BY-SA and you do not need to
> > ask permission to use or distribute it under the terms of that
> > license. Additionally, I'm often willing to freely license the work to
> > others under more permissive terms (i.e., in a non-copyleft movie or a
> > film). To ask about using my work in your project, send me an email at
> > whatever@wherever.
> >
> > If your work becomes so popular that dealing with these case-by-case
> > becomes prohibitively difficult, you can find a better solution. That
> > would be a wonderful problem to have!
>
> Great advice.
I found this more concise text (on my own blog!):
All original content is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. More permissive
licensing is available for most content on request.
Nerd42
> Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
> as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
>
> 1KDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Blaise Alleyne
> I found this more concise text (on my own blog!):
>
> All original content is licensed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. More permissive
> licensing is available for most content on request.
Blaise Alleyne
the board for consistency and deal with these sorts of cases
individually.
On Jul 18, 7:51 pm, "Rob Myers" <yar...@gmail.com> wrote: