Worked example · Music · Year 9
DCF: Citizenship → Digital rights, licensing and ownership
A secure Year 9 response, with the Part A answers so you can mark it at the front of the room. Show it after Part A is collected. Scenario 8 is the trick: the correct answer is that there is no licence, so nothing is permitted.
| What the musician wants | Licence | Why that one |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Anyone, even an advert, so long as I am credited | CC BY | CC BY allows commercial use and adaptations. Credit is the only condition, which is exactly what is being asked for. |
| 2. Remixes allowed, but every remix stays as free as mine | CC BY-SA | ShareAlike forces an adaptation to carry the same or a compatible licence, so the freedom is passed down the chain. |
| 3. Community radio or a school film yes, advert no | CC BY-NC | NonCommercial blocks uses primarily aimed at commercial advantage or money. Remixing is still allowed, which the radio show may need for a trailer. |
| 4. Share it anywhere, including paid-for things, but do not chop it up | CC BY-ND | NoDerivatives permits sharing the whole, unchanged work, and permits commercial use. It is the only licence that says yes to money and no to editing. |
| 5. Do anything, you need not credit me | CC0 | Not one of the six licences. CC0 is a public domain dedication: the creator waives their rights as far as the law allows, so attribution is not required. |
| 6. Non-commercial, remixes allowed, remixes carry my conditions | CC BY-NC-SA | Needs all three elements at once: credit, non-commercial, and ShareAlike on adaptations. |
| 7. Whole thing, unchanged, free causes only | CC BY-NC-ND | The most restrictive CC licence: credit, no money, no adaptations. "That is as far as I will go" is the giveaway. |
| 8. A track with no licence information anywhere | No licence — all rights reserved | Copyright is automatic, so silence is not permission. Until the artist says otherwise I may not copy, share or remix it. This row has no CC answer. |
Evidences criteria 1 and 2: every element is described by what it permits or blocks, CC0 is kept separate from the six licences, and the unlicensed track is correctly treated as fully protected.
This breaks the NC part of the licence. Selling copies of the film for £5 each is a use aimed at monetary compensation, and it stays commercial even though the money is going to the parents' association rather than into anybody's pocket — the licence looks at what the use is for, not at where the profit ends up. There is a second problem too: putting a track under moving images counts as making an adaptation, so ShareAlike would force the whole film to be released under CC BY-NC-SA as well.
Lawful routes forward, in the order I would try them: email the musician, explain it is a school fundraiser and ask in writing for permission to sell copies, and keep the reply; or swap to a track licensed CC BY or CC0, which both allow commercial use; or keep the CC BY-NC-SA track and give the film away free online with a donations box instead of selling DVDs, while still licensing the film CC BY-NC-SA.
Criterion 3: names the exact word breached (NonCommercial), refuses the "it is for charity" escape, spots the ShareAlike consequence, and offers three real routes.
This breaks the ND part. Taking eight bars, looping them and putting a new melody over the top is an adaptation, and NoDerivatives only lets you share the work in unadapted form. Crediting Dylan's source would not fix it, because the credit answers the BY condition and the problem is the editing, not the credit. Dylan may sample it privately in his own practice; what he may not do is share the result.
He has three honest options: ask the artist for permission to sample, since a licence is a starting offer and artists often say yes to a school; use the track whole and unaltered as an intro before his own piece begins; or choose a CC BY or CC BY-SA loop instead, remembering that CC BY-SA would make him release the mash-up on the same terms.
Criterion 3: separates the BY condition from the ND condition, and distinguishes private use from sharing.
Criterion 4: title, author, source, licence, and the two changes stated. The edit is declared because shortening and fading are adaptations, which CC BY permits but does not let you hide.
| The licence I would put on our class track | CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 |
|---|---|
| Reason 1 — what I want to allow | Other schools and youth groups should be able to use the track in their own films and remix it for free, without having to find our email address and wait for an answer. |
| Reason 2 — what I want to stop | I do not want it turned up behind an advert or sold on a compilation. NC stops that, and SA stops someone remixing it and then locking their version down. |
| One thing I am giving up by choosing it | A film-maker who wants to put our track in something they sell has to stop and ask us, and some will simply pick a CC BY track instead. NC costs us reach. I also cannot take the permission back from anyone who has already downloaded it. |
| Why I did not choose CC0 | CC0 gives up the right to be credited. This is the first thing our class has recorded and I want our names travelling with it, which is exactly what the BY element guarantees. |
Criterion 5: a real choice with a real cost admitted, and the reason for rejecting CC0 is the attribution point rather than a vague preference.