rules are meant to be broken
ZEN WAR
Offline
A gray world of dread
boomlinde wrote:
I think that ND is useful when the integrity of the work is very important to you, but you explicitly want to grant the consumer some other right that CC provides a clear legal definition of (in the case of ND-BY, probably the right to commercially distribute and perform the work). Maybe you have written and recorded a political speech and don't want half of it cut out, reassembled and used to your disadvantage, but you want commercial radio stations to be able to play it back freely.
This. Which by the way nicely illustrates a problem with the NC option; is there a derivative yet which allows radio play but prohibits commercial distribution as mp3 or CD?
Offline
Sweden
I don't think there is. However, a change in the structure of the 2.0 licenses (where public performance/reproduction aren't actually defined, but covered under the same point under Restrictions) and the 3.0 licenses (where there is a clear distinction between public performance and reproduction in the definitions section) could mean that they are atomizing further.
Either way, the 3.0 license is easy to adapt to this type of case. It's just a matter of removing a few words.
Last edited by boomlinde (May 7, 2012 12:48 pm)
Offline
Brunswick, GA USA
µB wrote:
This. Which by the way nicely illustrates a problem with the NC option; is there a derivative yet which allows radio play but prohibits commercial distribution as mp3 or CD?
Join a PRO, radio play is a performance right, not a mechanical one.
Offline
Brooklyn NY US
Shiru wrote:
Well, imagine someone sees the ND for first time. He goes here to learn what this mean and reads:
No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Sounds quite negative to me. I didn't ever see that someone would add a not that someone who wants to get a permission, he may try to contact the author, and I doubt it is that obvious. If it would be worded like 'you need to get direct author permission to alter, transform, or build upon this work' (with 'don't need' for non-ND licenses), that would be much better.
Actually I agree -- that wording is not very good, and gives the wrong impression.