Please do not lay the task of determining licensing upon the shoulders of the user. If you can't clearly indicate which subcomponents are OGA-BY instead of the indicated license CC-BY, then there should not be any mention of another license and everything should be considered the indicated license. It only increases confusion.
EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
LOL, it didn't really make me cross, just concerned for the clarity of license. :P
I was going to say, "be cautious about discussing Crypto and NFT on this submission, the OP may consider it off-topic", but I see that OP has made the largest contribution to the discussion, so I guess it's fine. Haha!
That being said, I agree with Killerfishred. Crypto is not nearly as subversive as one might think. Source: The attorney that wrote the legal text for the NFT warning on the front page of OGA. Crypto is subject to all the same copyright and data laws that everything else is. Anyone who says "The government has no say in what happens with Crypto" doesn't know what they're talking about. Crypto is taxable and governable, and NFTs fall under the authority of the S.E.C.
Looks like nearly all of the assessments I did before are accurate, but not all of them. Apologies for that. I should have been more cognizant of the bug that Marko mentioned. Thanks for calling that to attention, Marko.
Of the three submissions rubberduck mentioned above, LPC animated waterfall I am unsure of, so it should not be treated as if version 4.0 of the license is allowed. We can ask zapaper for confirmation, though.
"Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code that may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :("
the information that displays based on that check box is still not visible. however, the correct state of the check box is retained behind the scenes. So the only accurate way to determine if the user checked that box or not is to manually check behind the scenes on a case by case basis for now.
@Unnamed: Lunarexxy is correct. To avoid confusion, the Copyright/Attribution Notice section as well as the license.txt in the .zip files should be updated to indicate both CC-BY 3.0 and 4.0 are acceptable so that it matches the licenses listed on the left side of the page.
EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
@Lunarexxy: Good catch. The answer to your question is, it is under both licenses. Rather, it is under whichever one you prefer. You may chose the terms of CC-BY 3.0 or CC-BY 4.0.
Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code what may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :(
Distinguishability of the original base content is nearly irrelevant to copyright in this context. That is only helpful in proving if something is a copyright violation. For example, Hank suspected Jesse Pinkman of making illegal substances in the RV, but he couldn't prove it right away. The truth is, Jesse Pinkman absolutely was making meth in the RV. The fact that Hank wasn't able to prove it doesn't change the truth of it.
If any part of this song is using copyrighted material as a base, it is violating copyright. The fact that it is so obfuscated by the various audio tools that Sony Pictures may not be able to prove it is violating their copyright doesn't change the truth of it.
I'm sorry. I think this song is catchy, but if ANY part of it was made using copyrighted content, then it can't be hosted here. I do understand the argument "but there is absolutely no recognizable copyrighted parts so what is the difference?". However, the counter-argument is "if there is no difference, then why not make the song without using any of those components?"
This is true of any art that uses other people's work as a base, guide, or framework to make your own. If you don't have the other people's permission to use those parts, you have to make your art without those parts.
Nice pack!
Please do not lay the task of determining licensing upon the shoulders of the user. If you can't clearly indicate which subcomponents are OGA-BY instead of the indicated license CC-BY, then there should not be any mention of another license and everything should be considered the indicated license. It only increases confusion.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
LOL, it didn't really make me cross, just concerned for the clarity of license. :P
I was going to say, "be cautious about discussing Crypto and NFT on this submission, the OP may consider it off-topic", but I see that OP has made the largest contribution to the discussion, so I guess it's fine. Haha!
That being said, I agree with Killerfishred. Crypto is not nearly as subversive as one might think. Source: The attorney that wrote the legal text for the NFT warning on the front page of OGA. Crypto is subject to all the same copyright and data laws that everything else is. Anyone who says "The government has no say in what happens with Crypto" doesn't know what they're talking about. Crypto is taxable and governable, and NFTs fall under the authority of the S.E.C.
Looks like nearly all of the assessments I did before are accurate, but not all of them. Apologies for that. I should have been more cognizant of the bug that Marko mentioned. Thanks for calling that to attention, Marko.
Of the three submissions rubberduck mentioned above, LPC animated waterfall I am unsure of, so it should not be treated as if version 4.0 of the license is allowed. We can ask zapaper for confirmation, though.
Looks like only submissions with revisions are 100% accurate. Let me reassess the stuff I've checked in the past.
@marko:
the information that displays based on that check box is still not visible. however, the correct state of the check box is retained behind the scenes. So the only accurate way to determine if the user checked that box or not is to manually check behind the scenes on a case by case basis for now.
Lovely!
@Unnamed: Lunarexxy is correct. To avoid confusion, the Copyright/Attribution Notice section as well as the license.txt in the .zip files should be updated to indicate both CC-BY 3.0 and 4.0 are acceptable so that it matches the licenses listed on the left side of the page.
EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
@Lunarexxy: Good catch. The answer to your question is, it is under both licenses. Rather, it is under whichever one you prefer. You may chose the terms of CC-BY 3.0 or CC-BY 4.0.
All three allow later versions.
Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code what may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :(
Distinguishability of the original base content is nearly irrelevant to copyright in this context. That is only helpful in proving if something is a copyright violation. For example, Hank suspected Jesse Pinkman of making illegal substances in the RV, but he couldn't prove it right away. The truth is, Jesse Pinkman absolutely was making meth in the RV. The fact that Hank wasn't able to prove it doesn't change the truth of it.
If any part of this song is using copyrighted material as a base, it is violating copyright. The fact that it is so obfuscated by the various audio tools that Sony Pictures may not be able to prove it is violating their copyright doesn't change the truth of it.I'm sorry. I think this song is catchy, but if ANY part of it was made using copyrighted content, then it can't be hosted here. I do understand the argument "but there is absolutely no recognizable copyrighted parts so what is the difference?". However, the counter-argument is "if there is no difference, then why not make the song without using any of those components?"This is true of any art that uses other people's work as a base, guide, or framework to make your own. If you don't have the other people's permission to use those parts, you have to make your art without those parts.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Pages