(03-26-2017, 05:21 PM)peastman Wrote: [ -> ]It means that if you use it to create a piece of music, you have to release your music under CC-BY-SA too.
I'm pretty sure that it's the samples themselves that need to be released under the same license if you modify them, not the music you create using them. I could be wrong though, and in that case feel free to quote or direct me to the part of the CC-BY-SA that says so
Here's what the summary at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ says about it:
Quote:If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Using the samples in a piece of music certainly counts as "building upon" them. The full text of the license is at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-.../legalcode. The relevant portion is its definition of "adapted material":
Quote:Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor.
I've never interpreted that bit as pertaining to the music created from the samples. But yes, you might very well be right. Hmm.
Any thoughts about what you want to do for the license? I can't really move forward until you decide.
"building upon them" means stuff like creating modified versions of the material (ie, the sample). Having to extend the license to music created using these samples is insane and I've never heard of that except in the case of the GNU GPL. But CC doesn't do that.
The license holder of a sample doesn't have the right to tell the author of a piece of music what license to release his music under because the copyright of the music naturally rests with the musician. Licenses don't get extended to entire symphonies like that. Because if that was the case, you could never use more than 1 sample pack in your music...
CC was also created for other things than sound samples I believe, the material it refers to is usually an image.
But I doubt any of us is a copyright lawyer.
(04-02-2017, 07:00 AM)kneedeep Wrote: [ -> ]"building upon them" means stuff like creating modified versions of the material (ie, the sample). Having to extend the license to music created using these samples is insane and I've never heard of that except in the case of the GNU GPL. But CC doesn't do that.
The license holder of a sample doesn't have the right to tell the author of a piece of music what license to release his music under because the copyright of the music naturally rests with the musician. Licenses don't get extended to entire symphonies like that. Because if that was the case, you could never use more than 1 sample pack in your music...
CC was also created for other things than sound samples I believe, the material it refers to is usually an image.
But I doubt any of us is a copyright lawyer.
This is exactly how I've also assumed it worked, yeah.
I have a fair amount of experience with open source licenses, so while I'm not a lawyer, I can definitely say that most people in the community would interpret it that way. With the GPL, the generally agreed interpretation is, "If you include even one line of GPL code in a project, the whole thing has to be released under the GPL." And the SA license is based on exactly the same model. And the wording of the license seems pretty clear: it covers anything in which "the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified". The samples are certainly "arranged" and "transformed" in creating a piece of music.
But ultimately what really matters is not how we interpret it but how users do. If I were choosing a sample library, I wouldn't even consider any library under the SA license. I'd immediately rule it out and look for something else. Because even if you think it's ambiguous, it could easily be interpreted as saying you have to release your music under the same license. And who wants to take that risk with their music?
If it's simply down to interpretation then yours is no more valid than mine -- no offense! If there's no legal precedent then I guess we would have to ask the author of the license?
Quote:If it's simply down to interpretation then yours is no more valid than mine
Yep, precisely my point. Ultimately it's up to courts to decide how to interpret a license, which of course will vary between countries. (For example, in some countries sampling is considered fair use regardless of the license. In others it isn't, and still other countries don't even have a concept of fair use.) And I assume you have no plans to actually sue anyone claiming they used your samples in their music!
So the real issue is how users will interpret it. The SA license will scare a lot of people off, and for good reason. Because it
can be interpreted as saying they have to give away their music.
For what it's worth, the sampling+ license was created for exactly the use case you have in mind: you can't take the library and sell it, but if you make use of the samples to create something new, you're free to do whatever you want with it. The reason they list for deprecating it is, "Not compatible with any other CC license, inadequate demand." I don't see those as critical problems, so I'd be fine with sticking with that.
Ah, OK! Well in that case I'm fine with using Sampling+, which I think was a great and specific license for this type of thing. I just thought it was removed because, well, other CC licenses covered what it was doing already. I could never figure out exactly which ones that would be, but... yeah. I used sampling+ in SSO because a couple of the sources (MSLP and Philharmonia) used it. These two have since changed their minds (which they can't... technically) and moved to more restrictive licenses. But if sampling+ is still valid to use, then I'd be happy to use it.
Exactly which samples are we talking about here btw? The experimental ones on my site?