[okfn-discuss] Radiohead Release Data For Video (CC-NC)

Wed Jul 16 20:21:29 UTC 2008

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 15/07/08 21:11, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
>> 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