Illegal SA licensing allowed?
Clarence Simpson
|
.
permalink
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 @ 7:47 AM
The only reason I noticed this is because of the Tubed By You event and the fact that it allows SA licenses. So, we have had this influx of SA material lately and it got me thinking about licensing issues.
OK, so, first of all, according to this official CC license compatibility matrix, if you use a CC-BY-SA work as source material the derivative work MUST be also licensed CC-BY-SA. SA works can only be used in works with the EXACT same license. However, it appears that the ccMixter upload system just considers SA to be an additional provision that must be added to any other provisions (such as NC) when remixing. So, for example this remix is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA because it uses both a CC-BY-NC sample and a CC-BY-SA sample (the upload system just added the NC and SA provisions together for the derivative work). Yet, according to the above matrix this remix was illegal. I’m not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clearly wrong to me. Also, sorry for bringing this up because I know it will be a sucky thing to fix. :/ |
Subliminal
|
.
permalink
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 @ 10:49 AM
First of all, I don’t like SA.
Secondly, strictly speaking you are probably right (but I am just a psychologist posing as a software developer, so what do I know), but I would think that since CC-BY-NC-SA is more restrictive it wouldn’t be a problem. Just my two cents (whatever that is worth these days…). |
|
.
I think there are definitely some people who would agree with you and wouldn’t care if the NC clause was added to a derivative work. The thing is that the SA clause is actually a restriction on what restrictions can be applied to derivative works, and some people choose that very deliberately. SA is not just an alternative to standard copyrights, it is actually anti-copyright (or “copyleft” as some people say).
Some people use CC-BY-SA specifically because they don’t want their work or any work derived from their work to ever be anything but CC-BY. They don’t want non-commercial or “all rights reserved” restrictions ever added to their work. They want their work to be totally “free” for any type of use whatsoever and they want other people to agree to do the same in order to use their work. In short, I still feel fairly certain that there are some people who would be upset that their CC-BY-SA work is used in a CC-BY-NC-SA derivative work. |
|
|
.
BY-SA adaptations can only be BY-SA. Plenty of people who use BY-SA would be very upset if they found adaptations under a more restrictive license. This is a serious bug if it is the case.
|
|
|
.
To be honest, I never thought about it that way. I always thought about it as purely a restriction and not as a restriction on possible restrictions. Still, I don’t like it, because of its restrictive nature.
It also makes me think how it effects collections of remixes. For the sake of argument, let’s say I have a collection of remixes which all use samples that are licensed under a CC-BY-NC license, except for one remix, which uses a sample with a CC-BY-SA license. Which license should I use for the collection as a whole? That one exception forces me to use a CC-BY-SA license, but that would go against the NC nature of all the other remixes. |
|
spinningmerkaba
admin
|
.
permalink
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 @ 12:31 PM
I’ve disabled the SA options in the Tubed BY You event. Human error on my part. I will contact all SA contributors to the event and ask them if we can change the lic to either CC-BY or CC-BY_NC hopefully that will take care of the problem with this event.
I will also investigate site wide for other possible problems regarding this licensing issue. Thanks for pointing this out! |
rashmichaudhary
|
.
permalink
Fri, Aug 31, 2018 @ 2:01 AM
Thank you for this post
|
Bugs::Illegal SA licensing allowed?
This site uses