Is usage of a still frame from a video considered a derivative work/adaptation? Let's say that Alice makes a video and releases it under the CC-BY-ND license. Bob now wants to use a still frame from the video in his work (maybe to showcase or aggregate thumbnails of Creative Commons videos). Multiple places on the Creative Commons website, including the license deed for CC-BY-ND and their FAQ, emphasize that: Merely changing the format never creates a derivative. and All CC licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or medium. This suggests that changing a MP4 file to, say, an AVI file is not considered an adaptation. However, taking a still frame from a video seems a bit unclear. On one hand, it could be interpreted as "converting" the file from one format to another (for example from MP4 to GIF) and it would not be an adaptation. On the other hand, the use could be considered "transformative" and therefore a derivative work since Bob chose a still frame that represented the whole video (or another way to think of it is that he "cropped" all the other frames of the video out and therefore modified the video, which would then make it a derivative work). Here are my questions: Is Bob's usage considered a derivative work under US copyright law? Is Bob's usage considered an "adaptation" under the CC-BY-ND license? If it makes any difference, let's say that Alice has licensed her work under the 4.0 version of the license.
1. Is Bob's usage considered a derivative work under US copyright law? Possibly. Under US law, a derivative work is: … a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. Lee v. A.R.T. Co. - 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997) is on point here. There the court held that originality was essential to a derivative work. The selection of a particular frame out of the many available is an editorial choice that possibly meets the threshold for originality and is, therefore, a derivative work. Or it isn't and it is merely an abridged reproduction of the original. It depends on the facts. These include how much editorial originality the selection of the particular frame requires (e.g. the choice of a single frame from a highly dynamic video like a fight sequence requires more originality than the choice of a frame from a pan across a static landscape) and the circumstances surrounding its use. 2. Is Bob's usage considered an "adaptation" under the CC-BY-ND license? Maybe. If it’s a derivative work under applicable work then it is ipso facto an adaptation because that’s how the licence defines adaptation. If it isn't, then it isn't.
The first question is whose law you are concerned with, since in principle you might have violated copyright law in any country, and might be sued under the laws of multiple countries. The US has a concept of "fair use" which is notoriously difficult to apply. When you are sued in the US, you can defend against the allegation by arguing certain things: telegraphically, this includes purpose and character of use, nature of the work, substantiality in relation to the whole, and effect on market. Plus there is a 5th factor to be considered, transformativeness. The court then weighs these factors to decide if the use is "fair". By reading existing case law on the topic (conveniently available from the US Copyright office) you might develop a fact-based opinion of the risk: you would be vastly better off hiring an attorney who specializes in US copyright law to do an analysis for you. Do not hire a programmer to give you legal advice (do not hire an attorney to debug code). You would "fail" on the test of substantiality in that you are copying a highly substantial portion of the original work(s). You would "win" on nature of use (research especially non-profit and commentary are the underlying purposes that drive fair use law). It's not clear how you would fare w.r.t. nature of the work, which is intended to distinguish the extremes "news report" and "literature and artistic work" where copying news is at the fair use end of the spectrum. It is not clear how you would fare on "effect on market", but probably not so badly: are you avoiding some licensing fee? Coupled with the tranformativeness consideration, you are most likely having no effect on the market, since the product that you will distribute is not the original work, but a scientific conclusion about the work. Germany has different laws, and this article would be relevant if you cared about Germany. There was a change in the law that expanded the analog of fair use pertaining to research use. That law allows 15 percent of a work to be reproduced, distributed and made available to the public for the purpose of non-commercial scientific research. That, b.t.w., does not refer to what you are planning to do (unless you also publish quotes); for personal scientific research you may reproduce up to 75 percent. Since this is a new law only a year old, you could become part of the cutting edge in testing the limits of the law. So the standard disclaimer applies: ask your attorney. But note section 60d of the law which legalized data mining, and is squarely on point: (1) In order to enable the automatic analysis of large numbers of works (source material) for scientific research, it shall be permissible to reproduce the source material, including automatically and systematically, in order to create, particularly by means of normalisation, structuring and categorisation, a corpus which can be analysed and to make the corpus available to the public for a specifically limited circle of persons for their joint scientific research, as well as to individual third persons for the purpose of monitoring the quality of scientific research. In such cases, the user may only pursue non-commercial purposes. (2) If database works are used pursuant to subsection (1), this shall constitute customary use in accordance with section 55a, first sentence. If insubstantial parts of databases are used pursuant to subsection (1), this shall be deemed consistent with the normal utilisation of the database and with the legitimate interests of the producer of the database within the meaning of section 87b (1), second sentence, and section 87e. (3) Once the research work has been completed, the corpus and the reproductions of the source material shall be deleted; they may no longer be made available to the public. It shall, however, be permissible to transmit the corpus and the reproductions of the source material to the institutions referred to in sections 60e and 60f for the purpose of long-term storage.
Photographs of objects other than flat artworks, including pretty much all the things you list except in some cases oil paintings, involve creativity and originality in composition, positioning, lighting, and other aspects, and each such photo would be copyrighted by the photographer (or the photographer's employer in a work-made-for-hire situation). Such photos (or copies of them) could be sold if the copyright owner chooses to, just like any copyrighted work. If the object being photographed is itself a work of art, and if it is recent enough that it is still under copyright protection (See this chart for US rules on copyright terms), then the photo would be a derivative work, and the permission of the copyright holder on the original would in theory be required. But such a requirement could only be enforced by the copyright holder on the original work filing suit, and if the work is not clearly identifiable this might not be likely. If the photographer knows the name of the original artist, and the work seems likely to be still in copyright, an attempt to secure permission would be at least good practice, and quite possibly legally essential. For a flat (2D) work of art, such as a painting, if the photo attempts to reproduce the original exactly (a "slavish copy" ), then under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) decision, the photo will not be original and so will not be protected by copyright. See this question and its answers for more on Bridgeman A photo of a painting on a stand, showing the painting and its frame, and not trying to just reproduce the painting exactly, will not fall under the Bridgeman rule. This answer is quite US-oriented. Much of it will apply in any country which adheres to the Berne Copyright Convention but the details may vary, and if a different jurisdiction is intended, that should be stated.
No, it does not fall under fair use: It is commercial use in nature It is a copyrighted work It is hard to say what portion of the copyrighted work you'd be using based on your description, so test three is inconclusive It could be argued in your favor that the infringement would not have an impact on their potential market, but it could potentially impact the value If discovered the owner of the copyright could pursue action against the company you work for.
There is no such law; copyright secures exclusive rights for the copyright holder (and related rights sometimes secure certain rights for the author which cannot be sold or given away except through death), but it cannot be used to force them to spend money to distribute it in a form that you can conveniently use. Such a rule would defeat the purpose of copyright law, which is to give the copyright holder control over the use of the work, not take away their ability to do so. You can certainly request that they release the work, and can offer to pay them for doing so. But someone who does not own the copyright or any related rights cannot use copyright law to force the person who does own the copyright to spend their own money to convert a show into a new format.
Generally, as the copyright holder, you can grant anyone a license to any or all of the copyright rights you have over your work (copying, distribution, derivative works, etc.). If you want to articulate unambiguously exactly what rights you are licensing, and optionally require attribution, you could use one of the Creative Commons licenses, which are designed for creative works. Some that would likely be a good fit for you are: Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY) - Grants full rights to any recipient to use, modify, and distribute. Requires that all reuse mentions you somewhere in the work's credits. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA) - Grants the same full rights as the CC BY license except that any new derivative work made by a recipient must also be licensed under the CC BY-SA license. With the CC BY license, another person's modifications could be under a different license; under CC BY-SA, all modifications must be licensed under CC BY-SA when distributed, so the work and all its future transformations must be shared under the CC BY-SA license, forever (until your copyright expires, of course). This falls under the broad umbrella of copyleft licenses. CC0 - Functionally places your work in the public domain where it can be used by anyone with no restrictions (other than moral rights). CC0 allows you to renounce all claim to copyright on your work (to whatever extent possible in your jurisdiction), and/or freely license all the rights you hold in your work to the maximum extent possible (for jurisdictions where renouncing your copyright is not possible). There are also Creative Commons licenses that disallow commercial use and disallow the creation of derivative works, but you are probably not interested in those, since you want to grant full rights. One other factor to consider is whether you want to license the musical work itself or only the sound recording. By default, you might only be licensing the recording, which means other people cannot record a new cover of your music. (See Does a Creative Commons license allow me to record a cover of a song recording?) If you want to allow that, simply make a separate declaration when you license the work, saying something like, "In addition to the sound recording(s), I also license the underlying musical work under identical terms, to allow recipients to record their own covers based on this song."
Well, actually, fair use is maximally relevant. Copyright means, put simply, DO NOT COPY. Citing or not is irrelevant (plagiarism is a whole other non-legal kettle of fish). Technically, what you describe is violation of copyright. However, under section 107 of Title 17 (the copyright law), you could attempt to defend yourself against an infringement suit on the basis that your action was "fair use". See this LSE q&amp;a for the essentials of fair use.
This case did not find that Two Live Crew's version was fair use. Rather it held that it could be fair use, contrary to the lower court ruling that its commercial nature precluded a fair use defense based on parody. The court remanded the case to be considered in light of its holding. The two parties settled without getting a final decision on fair use. It was never really contested that this work was parody. The issue was whether the commercial nature rendered it unfair. The Supreme Court told the lower courts to assess the taking under the full four-factor fair use analysis and that commercial use doesn't automatically make a parody unfair. One source of confusion is that you seem to be conflating parody and fair use. Parody is just one purpose (along with criticism, education, and others) that has been generally held to swing the balance in favour of fair use. Last, the "five word plagiarism rule" is not a legal standard.