On 18 May 1999, Kevin Shrieve wrote:
> if your license allows re-use only if the new works carry the same
> license, then the Nike commercial (which would be unlikely to
> carry a copyleft type of license) would be an infringement.
> [...] Does that sound right?
I don't know. Would the entire production, be it a commercial or
movie, need to be copylefted for the material to be used? It could
be viewed as a modification of the work just as any other. Or, can
someone say that these elements are copyright, while these retain
copyleft status? Could a movie soundtrack use both copyrighted
and copylefted songs without infringing upon either sort of license?
Outside of placing a trademark at risk, it would seem an advertiser
would be willing to copyleft a commercial before a filmmaker would
copyleft a large budget movie production. The commercial recovers
its production expenses from sales of the item advertised, while the
movie recovers its production expenses from sales of itself.
