Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:15 am:I think the additional question of whether or not something is a derivative work is the key question, and Thorsten ignores that problem. If he had a good reason for why I was wrong in what I said before he would have refuted it rather than ignored it.
Right, the only reason that I don't answer to each and every argument in a page-long discussion is that I have no good answer...
I actually cited a text from the CC page that defines when something is a derivative work (called 'adaption' there) and commented on it before - how did you miss that?
So the reason I didn't answer is that I already had
I didn't miss that at all, you commented on it, was wrong, I corrected you and you ignored
that. That's what I'm talking about.
Your view of what constitutes "derivative" work and/or "adaptation" is simply wrong.
That error of yours is what allows you to think of everything as stealing regardless of whether it's "small" or "big", when in fact the "size" and essence of use are actually in a sense connected, and point back to the very definition of "derivative" and/or "adaptation". A photo that is unrelated to the story in a movie and appears only briefly, unaltered, is not a derivative or adaptation of the photo - and
that is directly related to how and how much it is used.
I don't see how you don't get that.
Quite frankly I think you're missing some nuance in the English language here.
An "adaptation" isn't just using something.
A "derivative" of something else is also not just using that other thing.You're just wrong about this, and if you think you aren't, then
the above is what you'd address. (and pointing to Wikipedia again won't cut it for what should be obvious reasons)
Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:15 am:And so if it can be legally determined that the "use" of something is so "little" that it isn't "derivative" then it is what it is, regardless of how you feel about that. You might feel that it's still stealing, but it isn't (in such a hypothetical case).
I think I was the first to bring up the 'fair use' example here, so I don't see how citing it back to me helps me understanding anything
'Smilie' all you want,
we're not talking about "fair use" here. We were talking about something else.
Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:15 am:As for 'stealing a little'.
If I license something, the license needs to be followed. The arguments made here frequently involved 'What if a really large project uses something really small?' - does that void the license terms (we've had the photograph in the presentation or the movie).
No, it does not void the license terms - it's still stealing.
No, you're mischaracterizing what the proposition is. It's not that the object being used is something really small, it's whether or not what is used has significant importance in the work. You can't adapt a novel into a movie without using significant parts of the story. And you can't create a derivative of an image without using significant parts of the image. Once you have no 'connection' of significance between the two it's neither adaptation nor derivation.
Obviously the license always matters, but if the license restricts usage by others by hinging upon the new work adapting or deriving from the "small" work, and it doesn't, then at the very least
that part of the license no longer applies.
Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:15 am:Not following the license terms, even for a half-second sound clip,
is a copyright violation. That is black and white.
That's like saying breaking the law is committing a crime. Well, obviously!
Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:15 am:(And yes, forcing a whole movie into a Share-Alike license for including a short sound clip would be a disproportionate punishment in my view as well - a proportional response would be an order to remove the material and a minor compensation - perhaps according to the current market value of a commercially available sound of the same length. However - that does not change my view that the movie crew should never deliberately ignore a license in the first place.).
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that anyone should ignore licenses. Isn't this thread the proof of exactly the opposite?
Just post some legal cases from the real world where someone has used 'share' licenses in a commercial project and the courts ruled on it. Just find some cases to back up what you say. I'm particularly interested to see;
* cases where the movie was forced into a different license (I bet that never happened)
* the actual use of the copyrighted material that was infringed upon, so we can see examples of "derivative" and/or "adaptation"The ball's in your court.