New Copyright Licence Allows Remixing In UK

BearJ writes "Yahoo is reporting that Creative Commons is set to launch a new copyright licence in the UK that will allow for 'remix' use. Technically this use of another's works are illegal. Next month's Wired magazine will contain a CD licenced under this scheme, so sampling is permitted. More info on the Creative Commons site."

Comments

Re:Looks like it's full of holes to me

[tod_miller]

On the first point - recompressing this would be a derived work, and you might want to keep control over the quality and completeness of your work.

On the second point - yes they have been a bit lax here.

This license is GPL for creative works. Now, full GPL is not really nice for an artist. If Davinci was around he wouldn't just sue, but physically maim and torture those who draw the monalisa with a spliff or a moustache on posters.

If you make an image or music, it is your 'baby' like Gary Larson put it.

Code is also like this, but there is less aesthetic, or even more appropriate, less [person opinion]. It either works better, or it doesn't. [let snot talk about interface design for a moment]

So we need a free license, open for creative works, text, music and art.

Stock art uses many licenses, that generally are not 'public domain'. This allows ANYTHING to happen, altered, non-altered, and you do not have to recognise copyright. They do keep copyright, but allow you do anything you want, royalty free (under open license).

Music - if you want, you could have a completely closed license. It is mine, but freely distribute unchanged. (no mention of payment, sep. issue)

Fine, this works for me, and many others. If you want a license that gives XYZ permissions, make them brutally clear, not suggested.

I would say either make it a stock like license, where you basically GPL it.

Now, what it says is, either distributed it UNMODIFIED, or use little bits in your own work, but your own work must be freely distributable UNMODIFIED or people can use small bits of your work.

mmmm. Maybe a GPL/LGPL choice needs to be made.

Either it is freely distributable unmodified, nothing else, or you can modify and distribute as much as you want however you want, giving the same right and license, OR you specify a metric for the modifiability of your work, and this metric is imposed on all other licenses [or not]

Work A says 10% maximum of it may be sampled. Work B uses 9% of work A. Since it never breaks A's license, B could say C,D,and E can use 100% of it as an input.

So by default, we could say sampling is 10%... but what about max 10% of a song as original material can be composed as maximum 10% of final derivative work.

{difficult for trancey songs with lots of identical repeats :-)

Now, then it would be possible for track C to break A's license by sampling track B under the more freely quantified license, and taking A's component and making it 50% of its content (it might be a shorter track)

Perhaps '%' of derivative work is important, but unwieldly.

This is important though, I think authors would like to give over such freedoms to fans [legally] to promote thier creativity.

The key is distribution of the work afterwards.

Re:Step backwards?

[Anonymous Cowdog]

>the UK has no "Fair Use" so nothing is covered under it

Oh, but it does.

And actually whether a country's law enshrines this kind of right or not has no bearing on whether the right exists. Governments recognize, enshrine, and respect rights, or do the opposite. They do not grant rigths, or create them. In other words, rights simply exist, separate from governments.

For a license to explicitly "grant" a right that according to common practice should be universal, risks encouraging the overall deterioration of people's ability to enjoy that right.