Copyright exceptions with licenses such as public domain

All aspects of development related to audio and sound.
Post Reply
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Copyright exceptions with licenses such as public domain

Post by WildX » 05 Nov 2018, 11:22

[Topic split from: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=19912]
Discussion about public domain music and other license exceptions for music & SFX development.

For public domain stuff and for maintaining consistency by using Creative Commons labels and licences you want CC0. I don't think there would be a problem at all. I remember there was an argument about consistency and using the same licence for every file but I don't think it should apply with licenses that are less restrictive than our standard CC BY-SA. In short, if anyone wants to suggest public domain classical music they can; if anyone wants to adapt it they just need to make sure they can apply a CC BY-SA license to the modified work.
User avatar
Ledmitz
Developer
Developer
Posts: 218
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 23:40
Contact:

Re: Classics in the background

Post by Ledmitz » 07 Nov 2018, 21:44

"For public domain stuff and for maintaining consistency by using Creative Commons labels and licences you want CC0."

Yes it fits any public domain, just a fast way to say/type it. If the public domain file pre-dates CC, then really it wasn't made as CC, but CC0 still fits and is usable.

"if anyone wants to adapt it they just need to make sure they can apply a CC BY-SA license to the modified work"

Yeah. That was my question though. All CC licenses, except CC0, require attribution. I would like attribution for most things, but some technically don't fall into a CC category, though many authors license everything they make the same, you cannot , often, legally own rights to sounds we hear most everyday. There is a time limitation mentioned for short sounds and exceptions too and others regarding nature and many times I have heard questions in the past regarding original samples. If someone used a sound from a music making application or from a proprietary keyboard, they were informed that it could not be used. This has no legal standing. The reason those sounds are not licensed are for two reasons: They cannot license as anything other than public domain if they are making a music making device/machine/instrument, as it is meant to be used for that purpose and secondly and most important, they couldn't license them if they wanted to (except public Domain). It is not that the sounds have no license because they don't want to, they couldn't anyway since most samples are very short or are nothing but a pre-programmed algorithm that generates a sound and no matter what they would choose as a license, they would be PD sounds, regardless. I'm sure their lawyers have informed them of this, thus they don't put a license on sounds, because they are all PD anyway.

Damn license discussions always get long winded. So the actual question is more about why we can't submit, what is already considered a CC0 file as CC0? I can put whatever license on it I want to, but in the end, if it is predefined as public domain, then that is just what it is. I can't put a license on a sound that goes 'click'.
More even more to the meat of it...At present, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a clear answer as to whether you can use CC with stipulations on it, but most all GPL/art things are like this because the art is separate and as long as the GPL maintainers stick to the author's stipulations, then there shouldn't be a problem. GPL and CC-by-SA do not go together, in a legal sense, but because it just works, no one bothers with the semantics. Software and Art have separate licenses. That is the real problem. I move that software should be considered art and therefore should be able to be licensed as CC, but the legal system has yet to catch up.

In any event, I agree with GPL + CC-by-SA and so does most everyone else. That is why it is used so often. We have been too particular in the past. I think that if someone wants to submit an original work as CC0, they should be able too, especially since there are NO legal restrictions or controversy about it being used with GPL now.

Sampling Plus is another that should be allowed as source. You can't license a new sound as Sampling plus anyway, but if the intent of the author was to create a free sound, then it should be able to be used as a source sound, in my opinion. You just need to know what stipulations there are on it, if any. You can still re-license to its CC equivalent anyway, in our case CC-by-SA. You could legally use any Sampling plus sounds that do not include an NC clause with this project.
EDIT: or ND clause
Ledmitz = Mystic = Mystical_Servant = Ardits = BoomBoom = KillerBee
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Classics in the background

Post by WildX » 08 Nov 2018, 18:07

It all boils down to what the author wants to do. At least for music, if you wanted to submit anything you make as public domain I wouldn't personally have an objection to that. CC0 is just another way to say "public domain" that is consistent with our Creative Commons affiliation. I'd still recommend CC BY-SA whenever possible/appropriate for any original work, simply because having huge amounts of TMW content in the public domain could attract people wanting to pass off the work as theirs and even sell it. Obviously that's not a problem for the odd music track or something that is so clearly public doman (like an old piece of classical music) that no one could seriously claim as theirs.

tl;dr: if you think something should be public domain, CC0 is an acceptable license to label your work as such.
User avatar
Ledmitz
Developer
Developer
Posts: 218
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 23:40
Contact:

Re: Classics in the background

Post by Ledmitz » 08 Nov 2018, 19:13

WildX ... looking for a non-existent like button so ... (Like). Finally an answer that makes sense. I would submit any works here as CC-by-SA to help prevent thieves, regardless, but some sounds if they need very little editing, would just be a faded out version of the same source sound and should probably keep the original authors license. I don't have many like this now, but I like the saying "no need to reinvent the wheel". There is a punch sound I like and use here. I need to check its original license because it falls in this category. I can't think of much else like that now, but I am getting license info together as well as a list of who submitted what (re: sounds).
Ledmitz = Mystic = Mystical_Servant = Ardits = BoomBoom = KillerBee
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Classics in the background

Post by WildX » 09 Nov 2018, 10:17

The only thing that would cause problems is licences incompatible with CC BY-SA, which are any more-restrictive ones. So when you say about checking the original license, unless it's a public domain one it's best to take a look at the individual cases. I'll split this topic to make the discussion about licenses its own thing so I can sticky it for future reference. Feel free to post any questions about music licenses and individual tracks with an original license here. :)
Post Reply