Видео

1:43³³+14:43⁴⁴4444

8÷2-6=

​@@Movie12-h5b5:33

well you'd probably run into some issues regarding copyright infringement. Unless covered by a provision like fair use, you'd be using a copyrighted work without licensing it properly, and while whatever you made would be yours in terms of copyright (and the creator of what you infringed upon would have no rights to it, just like the kardashians can't themselves share pictures others have taken of them without permission), you'd probably run into issues distributing it if the aforementioned is the case

well, this is a matter of several factors. - did you follow the license, as in, did you make sure it's not NC, ND, etc.? - do you need anything else? e.g. in the UK something like making a music video requires a second license, it's called a synchronization license, and while it's usually not used against something like a youtube video it very well could - can you _actually_ use said song *and its components* ? A big RUclipsr, MumboJumbo, had this issue a while ago where he used Can't Stop Me by ProLeTeR and it turned out that, while he had a license for this, ProLeTeR had not properly licensed / informed of the use of a sample owned by Warner Chapel, so he received somewhere around 1500 copyright strikes once said sample entered the content ID pool - content ID is not skewed towards you, it is fundamentally there to prevent RUclips from being sued to kingdom come by large studios because of blatant facilitation of mass copyright infringement through their platform, which arguably lives off of doing exactly that. Content ID is part of a contract between said studios and RUclips detailing how there's a system to detect their works (which they submit), and which provides them options such as ad revenue diversion, restrictions or blocking of infringing works as suing everyone would be impractical (and not good for RUclips's prosperity). RUclips will always side with them as a matter of survival, as if any big player left this agreement or otherwise got too fed up they could still go the "let's sue RUclips into the ground" route. You can appeal, but that opens you up to a lawsuit. This is good because if the other person has no case (and/or not millions of dollars) you win, to reject an appeal you need to file an actual suit in copyright court, however this means that if you pick your fights badly you'll actually have to go to the world's biggest money-drain which was never designed for non-obscenely rich individuals great video on this: Tom Scott's "RUclips's copyright system isn't broken; the world's is" or LegalEagle's copyright for RUclipsrs course on Nebula (or his recent hit-piece on xQc stealing)

Yes, of course this is possible

@@nishanthy506 Thank you for your reply, that is very interesting

If the creative work/intellectual property you used to create whatever you created, albeit modification or composition or etc., had an SA license first and foremost, then whatever the other licenses the initial creator put on the work, so BY, NC, and/or ND, must be put on your work. Going off of your example, if the original photo had BY (default), SA, and ND, then I believe, by SA, your line drawing must be licensed as BY, SA, and ND. I think SA is self-reflective in this regard, meaning that once any creator along the use chain of that first photo, not necessarily the original creator, invokes SA, then every use after that must also include SA. Say, for example, someone takes a photo of a bird landing on a tree. That person is the primary creator, and by default, use of their work by anyone else requires a BY Creative Commons license unless they want to infringe on full-on copyright. Say this original creator chooses BY and NC. If someone else comes along to use the original photo, that secondary person can invoke BY, NC, and ND. So, as the use chain goes on and on, there is a risk that more and more licenses and restrictions could be put on creations made from the original photo. To avoid that, someone may invoke SA to limit the excess power people down the line might want to place. For your second example, it depends. If the original photo invoked BY and NC, then you don't have any right to sell it. If the original photo only had BY, then you are allowed to use it and possibly make money from it. Now, once you create your line drawing, changing it from the original, you may want to license the work for yourself. At that point you can put on your own BY, SA, and NC, forcing people who incorporate your work into theirs to attribute you and not make money off of the creation. The original creator, the person you got the original photo from, would not be entitled to any commercial benefits, I think. Note that at any point, if an SA is next to any license, all users along the chain have to keep the same licenses. If your original photo was BY and SA, then if you want to use it/modify it and want to have a license of your own, that license must have BY and SA too. I'm new to this too, so I may have this entirely wrong, but I hope that helps.

that's a you problem, unless some exception like fair use clearly covers what you did, you're at the mercy of doing whatever the license says to legally use that work. If it says it shall have the same terms, then that's how it is, otherwise you can't use it (outside of personal use, nobody can stop you from doing whatever you like with the thing as long as you don't distribute it)

Depends on the license, if it requires attribution (which many of them do) just include the name of the author and link to the original work in your creation.