Creative Commons question

[ddb174]

And I should add the the license isn't *that* confusing. It clearly states three things the author wants:

-You must give attribution to the authors and license
-You must not use for commercial purposes
-Your Work must be under the same license

If a person does not agree with those, then they should not use things with this license. If you don't want your work under the same license, this license is not for you. Don't try to find some loophole or way out of it.

[Trylon]

Oh, I'm just finding a loophole for fun I'm not the one wanting to use it, and I probably wouldn't anyway.
I find discussions like this refreshingly enlightening, and I like comparing interpretations.

Though in reference to your earlier posts, I'd like a legal definition of "based upon", please.

Btw, the part referring to movies is:

- motion picture version,

version being the operative word in my opinion. In my view that indicates e.g. a Myst movie or Harry Potter Movie.

Of course our differences in interpretation might be based on being used to two different legal systems. (Dutch vs (presumably) US)
Searching for legal loopholes is a proud Dutch tradition

But of course, if you have questions on how you can use a certain work, it's probably the easiest to contact its author. He's ultimately the one that determines it

[cfurlin]

- any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
- except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.

Usage in an Age certainly means your Age is based upon the Work! The same applies to movies: it's mere usage in the movie subjects you to this license(It explicitly names movies, but obviously games are just like movies so far as such licenses are concerned). It being a Collective Work would get you out of the Derivative Work clause and into the Collective Work clause, but it does not fit there. And even if it did not nicely fit into any clause, that does not give people the legal ability to define their own clause to follow! Don't let the fact that the sound file is distributed verbatim or as part of a game confuse you; the law does not care about such technical particulars.

I am a professinoal musician and in addition to my copyrighted material with all royalties attached, I do donate music to several online projects using the CC license. I use what is called the "Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 " license. Basically it means you can use it freely (even in commerical works), but you must give me credit and you may not derive from the work. As you stated above collective and derivative are not the same. Modifying audio to fit into a collection is not violating the derivitive clause -- basing another piece of music on the original, however, is a violation. Remember, the audio recording of a song is NOT the song itself. When you purchase a song, you don't own the song, you own the right to listen to a recording of the song. The same idea is in the software industry. When you buy Microsoft Windows, you don't own Windows, you own the right to use A COPY of Windows. Such is the world of digital media.

Having said all of this, I still think its a good idea to talk with a lawyer BEFORE making any changes to a work, even if its only changing the length of the audio to fit it into the "Story". It will save you a lot of heartache later in case things go horribly wrong.

[cfurlin]

Don't let the fact that the sound file is distributed verbatim or as part of a game confuse you; the law does not care about such technical particulars.

It does when the lawyers come a-knockin'

[Trylon]

Hehe,
"The law doesn't care about anything - That's were lawyers come in!"

[ddb174]

Cfurlin, both of your posts look like you have not understood the discussion and just posted some random soundbites about copyright :P We were discussing whether the license required the Age's author to put the rest of his assets under the same license or not. Anyway, he's heard two differing interpretations with the reasoning behind them. He can proceed as he wants. (By the way, you don't have to agree with me in copyright matters to get your Age uploaded, so don't worry about that.)

[cfurlin]

Cfurlin, both of your posts look like you have not understood the discussion and just posted some random soundbites about copyright We were discussing whether the license required the Age's author to put the rest of his assets under the same license or not. Anyway, he's heard two differing interpretations with the reasoning behind them. He can proceed as he wants. (By the way, you don't have to agree with me in copyright matters to get your Age uploaded, so don't worry about that.)

I understand it completely. I was trying to illustrate how subtle differences can be misunderstood and get one into trouble. These are discussion forums, not "agree with ddb174" forums. Leave your pompous attitude home next time, kk?

[rivenwanderer]

I'm going to email the artist just to see their opinion on things--there's no point in doing what's technically-legal to do if it makes the artist unhappy, I think... and if the artist is content with my proposal of how to use the content, then I won't have to worry.

I'm trying to come up with a 10-words-or-less summary of what "using a song as background music in an Age" entails from an outsider's point of view. I think the best description of an age I can think of is "free, fan-created and fan-published content for the game Myst Online". Has anyone else had luck in explaining the process to people outside of Myst fandom?

[ddb174]

Rivenwanderer: that sounds good to me; I would perhaps say "Uru" instead of "Myst Online" but that's just me.

Cfurlin, both of your posts look like you have not understood the discussion and just posted some random soundbites about copyright :P We were discussing whether the license required the Age's author to put the rest of his assets under the same license or not. Anyway, he's heard two differing interpretations with the reasoning behind them. He can proceed as he wants. (By the way, you don't have to agree with me in copyright matters to get your Age uploaded, so don't worry about that.)

I understand it completely. I was trying to illustrate how subtle differences can be misunderstood and get one into trouble. These are discussion forums, not "agree with ddb174" forums. Leave your pompous attitude home next time, kk?

Nah, I've read your other posts on this forum, and I'm pretty sure you're looking for fights. All three of your posts in this thread seem to almost intentionally misinterpret what has been said in one way or another. In this case, the original question in this thread was whether stuff with this license could be put on UAM, and since the Ages are emailed to me or Wolle for inclusion in UAM, one might expect me to not upload things if I did not agree with someone's interpretation of the license, so I very clearly said that a person does *not* have to agree with me; it will be uploaded in any event. And then you said what I said in a way that made it sound like I was saying the opposite, which is usually trolling behavior in my experience. (This is what you did with your line about the lawyers too, for that matter.)

[Trylon]

This is what I could come up with on short notice (though it's more than 10 words ).

- What is an Age?
"An 'Age' is a 3d virtual world for use as a fan created level in the game 'Myst Online: Uru Live'" (yes, it actually is for uru:CC at the moment but no need to confuse the artist, eh)

- How is the music used?
"Such a level consists of a(n extensive) set of 3D models, sounds, music and program code.
The music is used as ambience music, to enhance the feel of the virtual world, much like background music is used in a movie"

- How is the music distributed?
"From a technical standpoint, music and sound files are stored and distributed in a standard sound file format (OGG Vorbis),
separate from the other files, which are stored and distributed in a custom file format."