History:Cover Art Sites/Permission/Release Permission: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
((Imported from MoinMoin)) |
((Imported from MoinMoin)) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[[Cover Art Sites|CoverArtSites]] |
[[Cover Art Sites|CoverArtSites]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 07:49, 2 January 2008
This page stores permission links for coverart which is made free for use by the rightsholder(s), under cc-by-nc or otherwise.
Please link to both the release and the page providing permission. If permission is granted by other means, such as an email, please copy the document into a subpage to this one, and provide a link to it from here.
It is not ok to simply add such artwork. Documentation of the permission must also be added here.
Discussion
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
- 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)
- 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
