History talk:Cover Art Sites/Permission/Release Permission

From MusicBrainz Wiki

Surely the permission to use their image is not the same as permission to use their server bandwidth? I think we could argue that it's ok to use any artwork thanks to fair use, but it's the actual delivery of that image that is the issue. --Gecks

That's important, yes. And therefor this page is only meant for individual permissions for single images. Other agreements must still be listed on CoverArtSites. Maybe this should be made more clear on this page. -- OutsideContext
Quite, but current image in this list seems to be have been added based on the fact that it is free for use under a creative commons license, which is not the same thing as a 'you can use our server bandwidth' license. --Gecks
I think the bandwidth is a decent consideration, one we've not really addressed anywhere. One counter consideration though, and I really have no idea as to this one's answer... I don't know what the cc-by-nc 2.0 Germany license actually says (let alone any other license that may in future be used and cause an image to be listed here.) Does it allow us to re-host the image, be it here, or at Archive, or elsewhere? Let's ignore the wayback machine arguments here - specifically with regards to this image, does that license allow us to re-host the image to Archive for display? If we do so, don't we detach it from the license itself and thus technically break the license? -- -- BrianSchweitzer 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
bandwidth is the only consideration, so far. as shown with the use of archive.org, evidently the MBz community don't care too much about usage licenses! As far as I know, cc-by-nc allows you to rehost an image, provided the image is presented under the same license, i guess. --Gecks

Licenses

I just noted that the one "given" permission listed above is a Creative Commons one, with a 'No Commercial' (nc) clause. I know that MetaBrainz is a non-profit institution, but if I'm not much mistaken, certain services (e.g. LiveDataFeed) are commercial in nature, and while we can nullify MusicBrainz' own NC clause for the clients (or "customers"), we can't just nullify anyone else's. As I see it, this means that we'll either have to not accept licenses with NC clauses, or store license/permission in the db along with the relevant data, and not push that into MB's "commercial" products. (Note that we can still ask the respective copyright holder(s) to gain an exception to the NC clause.) Thoughts anyone? -- FrederikSOlesen 14:54, 08 March 2008 (UTC)