On 5/30/07, graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I liked this: http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/andrewl/news/freebeer/
[...snip....] From the article: Many of the new commercial media sharing sites offer highly restrictive
terms and conditions on their user contributions. The most dubious is that of YouTube who state <http://www.youtube.com/t/terms> "…by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business… in any media formats and through any media channels."
I still don't quite understand (this conversation has happened before about the mySpace T+C's) how granting such a licence is incompatible with the use of a free or liberal licence - surely the point of using a liberal licence is that these permissions are granted to anyone, whether they be a google-owned video sharing website, or Joe H. Remixer, making that clause effectively redundant, as such permissions are already implied by the underlying licence on the work. I guess it could be a potential problem for copyleft (youtube could make a (c) derivative work from the licenced work), but, beyond this, doesn't impact the licence in any notable way. Cheers, Tim
_______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
