Guild of Writers

Is releasing an Age on UAM/ULM/Drizzle (still not entirely sure how the "system" works in detail, but for this discussion--the currently widely-used offline age distribution system) compatible with the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike CC content? There's some music that I'd like to use that has that distribution license. (I'm happy to post the .blend files for the age or whatever else on my own site to comply, if that's needed.)

I believe so.
It's not a viral license so you don't have to release your blend file. Just add a readme file to the release that contains the credits for the music.

Good question; thanks for asking!

I've read over the license quickly, but I have not poured over it in detail. Because the rest of the Age does not constitute "separate and independent works", the license classes it as a "Derivative Work" (this meaning of derivative work does not necessarily jive with the legal code in any particular country, keep in mind). And since it is indeed a viral "share-alike" license, it does require you to make the rest of your "Derivative Work" (i.e. Age) available under the same license. So, if you wish to use this music, you must release your .blend file under this same license. And you must be careful if you wish to include other things in your Age with inconsistent licenses (the non-commercial part means your can't use anything under most other share-alike licenses, such as GPL. Non-commercial clauses suck :P).

So in summary, if you wish to use it: your .blend file should also be released, and be under the same license.

*nods* OK, that's mostly what I'd figured. I guess that if there's ever some future reality in which Cyan has a paid-access shard that accepts user-created content, I'd need to switch the music out at that point since it wouldn't (technically) be noncommercial anymore?

Yes, that's correct.

ddb174 wrote:I've read over the license quickly, but I have not poured over it in detail. Because the rest of the Age does not constitute "separate and independent works", the license classes it as a "Derivative Work"
......
So in summary, if you wish to use it: your .blend file should also be released, and be under the same license.

I disagree. I believe the rest of the age does constitute "separate and independent works";

I believe that an age that uses the music does fall under the term "Collective work":

License wrote:"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

An age file merely uses the music file, as the music is effectively distributed separately from the prp files, and the prp files only link to the music file. If the music is deleted it does not noticably affect everything else. It's as much a collective work as a magazine containing it's musical notation in an article would be.

Further, the inclusion of the music in an age is analogous to the inclusino of music in a movie: If the music is just used as a piece fof background, the movie can't be considered a derivative work of the piece of music. (Unless ofcourse we're talking about the very obvious exceptions of video clips, some musicals and those old movies based on songs)

Again, the use of the term "Derivative Work" in the license is not the same as it is in legal codes; the license provides its own definition for the purposes of this license. The sounds are integrated into the Age, so the rest of the Age is not independent of the sounds.

Perhaps you're thinking from a technical angle? That would then make sense, as the the sound file is indeed separate and independent in a technical sense. But that is not the sense that the law is concerned with normally, so it can be tricky for technically-minded people to properly read legal-ese, as it is written from a very different viewpoint. They even give examples to demonstrate what they are referring to, and what they are referring to is basically: "if you just want to put this in a collection of items that have nothing to do with this, you can do so without requiring the rest of the items in the collection to be under the same license". This would allow you to put it on a CD with other songs under other licenses if you wish. But you cannot use it in your movie without your movie being under the same license. The license is intended to be viral in this way; for those who do not want it this way, the Creative Commons provides licenses without the share-alike clauses. I know it might seem strange, but this is the intended behavior of the license.

Sigh - I hate viral licenses - or at the very least the headache and confusion they cause when trying to comprehend them and follow them!
They claim to give you freedom, but it's a bit fake freedom in my opinion.

Anyway, even if you have to do the whole share-alike licensing, you still wouldn't be forced to provide your blend-file. If that were the case, then the composer would be forced to provide his raw audio files, or his Protools project file.

EDIT:
Just went though the license again, and I guess you're talking about this part:

License wrote:"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as:
- a translation,
- musical arrangement,
- dramatization,
- fictionalization,
- motion picture version,
- sound recording,
- art reproduction,
- abridgment,
- condensation, or
- 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.

Now, I still can't see how this would affect anything but a work based upon the original music. Surely if you modify the audio file for use in the age, the modified audio file would fall under the term "derivative work".
But none of the above examples indicate that mere usage or quote in an age, or a movie would make that age or movie a derivative work. I still think that an age would fall under "Collective work"

P.S. Enjoying the discussion

For what it's worth, I would also tend to agree that the age + the song is a "Collective Work".

Also, if you're in the US, the CC website points to http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/help/volunteer%20lawyers.htm As a possible place to get a lawyer's answer to the question for free.

- 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.