Radiohead Release Data For Video (CC-NC)

[Rob Myers]

http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/

Releasing the data is great, but is it copyrightable and NC-able?

Either way, NC on data isn't good. It would have been nice for
Radiohead to be the first Open Knowledge performers. ;-)

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Rufus Pollock]

On 15/07/08 11:57, Rob Myers wrote:
> http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/
>
> Releasing the data is great, but is it copyrightable and NC-able?

Probably not -- though it would depend. Obviously they would have been
better off using a data-oriented license here.

> Either way, NC on data isn't good. It would have been nice for
> Radiohead to be the first Open Knowledge performers. ;-)

Exactly. Particularly here I'm not sure what the downside would having a
truly open license on the datasets for a music video animation. I would
guess it was the general feeling of let's just put on a NC restriction
to be on the safe side.

~rufus

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Mike Linksvayer-2]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...> wrote:
> On 15/07/08 11:57, Rob Myers wrote:
>> http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/
>>
>> Releasing the data is great, but is it copyrightable and NC-able?
>
> Probably not -- though it would depend. Obviously they would have been
> better off using a data-oriented license here.

I can't say I've looked closely, but I'm not sure it is useful to
think of this as 'data' unless you also consider a digital video
recording to be 'data' -- this is just more sparse.  Of course
everything is data, but that's not particularly useful for
licensing/access discussions.

>> Either way, NC on data isn't good. It would have been nice for
>> Radiohead to be the first Open Knowledge performers. ;-)
>
> Exactly.

Noooooooo!  Please, let's give credit to artists who have been
effectively releasing art as OK for years, even if they aren't as
famous as Radiohead.

Mike

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Rufus Pollock]

On 15/07/08 21:11, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...> wrote:
>> On 15/07/08 11:57, Rob Myers wrote:
>>> http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/
>>>
>>> Releasing the data is great, but is it copyrightable and NC-able?
>> Probably not -- though it would depend. Obviously they would have been
>> better off using a data-oriented license here.
>
> I can't say I've looked closely, but I'm not sure it is useful to
> think of this as 'data' unless you also consider a digital video
> recording to be 'data' -- this is just more sparse.  Of course
> everything is data, but that's not particularly useful for
> licensing/access discussions.

I think this was an unusual case in that they were *not* releasing
(AFAICT) a normal video but underlying data (3-D scan of Thom Yorke)
used to make a video via rendering technologies.

>>> Either way, NC on data isn't good. It would have been nice for
>>> Radiohead to be the first Open Knowledge performers. ;-)
>> Exactly.
>
> Noooooooo!  Please, let's give credit to artists who have been
> effectively releasing art as OK for years, even if they aren't as
> famous as Radiohead.

Of course. I don't think Rob was suggesting there weren't many other
performers who have been releasing open *content* for years (including
Rob himself!). I think the point here was more about the data side of
things. Though of course I may have misunderstood Rob's meaning :)

~rufus

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Mike Linksvayer-2]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...> wrote:

> On 15/07/08 21:11, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/07/08 11:57, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/
>>>>
>>>> Releasing the data is great, but is it copyrightable and NC-able?
>>>
>>> Probably not -- though it would depend. Obviously they would have been
>>> better off using a data-oriented license here.
>>
>> I can't say I've looked closely, but I'm not sure it is useful to
>> think of this as 'data' unless you also consider a digital video
>> recording to be 'data' -- this is just more sparse.  Of course
>> everything is data, but that's not particularly useful for
>> licensing/access discussions.
>
> I think this was an unusual case in that they were *not* releasing (AFAICT)
> a normal video but underlying data (3-D scan of Thom Yorke) used to make a
> video via rendering technologies.

Yes, I understand that.  It looks to me, as a lay human :), that it is
essentially a performance recording.  The recording method is unusual
and the recording (ie the data) encodes 3 dimensions rather than 2 and
doesn't encode color and the like that a typical video recording does.

>>>> Either way, NC on data isn't good. It would have been nice for
>>>> Radiohead to be the first Open Knowledge performers. ;-)
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> Noooooooo!  Please, let's give credit to artists who have been
>> effectively releasing art as OK for years, even if they aren't as
>> famous as Radiohead.
>
> Of course. I don't think Rob was suggesting there weren't many other
> performers who have been releasing open *content* for years (including Rob
> himself!). I think the point here was more about the data side of things.
> Though of course I may have misunderstood Rob's meaning :)

As above, I don't think content/data is an interesting distinction in
this case. They may be the first to semi-openly license content
recorded in one particular unusual format.

I'd love to be wrong, because that would mean unusual formats would be
less restricted than traditional formats (as data rather than content)
and CC would have to shame Radiohead for not putting their 'data' in
the public domain, where it belongs. :)

Mike

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss