__/ [ JPB ] on Sunday 04 June 2006 10:16 \__
> Fantastic achievement, of course.
Yes, it was said to be a great success and many DVD were sold, with plans to
do further work, maybe even a sequel.
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/1513215&from=rss
Here is a decent quality (for Flash) teaser:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O5u8Iha_WSE&search=elephant%20dream
> There's one thing I see which concerns me, to see something like this
> produced as an Open movie, rather than a Copyleft movie. The selected
> Creative Commons license does not include the "non-commercial" constraint
> (Yay - good call) but also omits the "share-alike" constraint (Boo - poor
> choice).
I have always wondered about that. The effect of derivatives and re-use would
open the door to all sorts of oddities and perhaps discourage some artists.
However, large companies have this advantage already:
http://www.prodisney.ru/clones.php
> The problem is that is not that anyone can take the work, and redistribute
> it or produce derivatives (commercially or otherwise), as that was the
> intention, but that (subject to attribution, only) such a derivative work
> could be subjected to the full force of today's copyright and/or Digital
> Restrictions, and locked away from subsequent re-distribution, re-mixing,
> and re-use.
>
> This has happened with computer software, as I need not say in C.O.L.A, and
> is the reason for inventing Copyleft - what would prevent it in this case,
> should "Elephants Dream" become successful and popular enough for a
> commercial organisation to do that to it?
It depends on the licences, I guess. A commercial organisation would probably
be forced to publish the code which renders the film in its entirety. I see
no harm in that. Anyone would then be able to tweak or rerelease the film
from the commercial organisation (yes, for free), so there would be little
or no incentive to them. OpenSUSE and Fedora illustrate this point.
> I don't believe *that* is what the creators of "Elephants Dream" would like
> to see, nor that it serves the interests of the wider community for that to
> be possible.
>
> Share-alike protects the original creator (and the rest of us!) from that,
> with content like this, by ensuring that creators themselves and downstream
> contributors will always retain the freedom to re-use and re-mix any
> further downstream derivative works produced
|
|
