Podcasting Legal Guide - Revision history

Nathan Yergler at 17:11, 27 February 2009

2009-02-27T17:11:04Z

Mike Linksvayer: /* You Are Using Creative Commons-Licensed Or “Podsafe” Content */ fix wikilink

2008-08-27T20:31:46Z

‎You Are Using Creative Commons-Licensed Or “Podsafe” Content: fix wikilink

Mike Linksvayer: /* Why Are Publicity Rights Relevant? */ fix link

2007-06-04T04:30:13Z

‎Why Are Publicity Rights Relevant?: fix link

Alex: /* What Other Issues Should I Be Thinking About? */

2007-03-14T19:08:58Z

‎What Other Issues Should I Be Thinking About?

Miakgarlick at 16:35, 8 May 2006

2006-05-08T16:35:09Z

Miakgarlick at 16:31, 8 May 2006

2006-05-08T16:31:39Z

Miakgarlick at 16:29, 8 May 2006

2006-05-08T16:29:51Z

Alex at 00:02, 27 April 2006

2006-04-27T00:02:18Z

Alex at 21:29, 24 April 2006

2006-04-24T21:29:30Z

Jon Phillips at 19:49, 17 April 2006

2006-04-17T19:49:28Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:legal]] [[Category:podcasting]] [[Category:license]] [[Category:guide]]
-<div style="border: 1px dashed #06f; margin: 0.5em auto 1em; padding:1em; margin-left:2em">Unlike other articles here this guide is licensed under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5].  A pdf version is [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide.pdf available]. Please provide feedback at [[Talk:Podcasting_Legal_Guide]] (requires registration).</div>
+<div style="border: 1px dashed #06f; margin: 0.5em auto 1em; padding:1em; margin-left:2em">Unlike other articles here this guide is licensed under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5].  A pdf version is [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide.pdf available]. Please provide feedback at [[Talk:Podcasting_Legal_Guide]].</div>
 [[Image:Podcasting_legal_guide.png]]

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 <li>''NonCommercial'' - this license condition means that you cannot make money from the work. This would, for example, mean that you cannot include a Creative Commons licensed piece of music that was NonCommercially licensed in a podcast, where the music is the primary draw and/or a substantial amount of the podcast and then charge people money to download your podcast. You also cannot include advertising before or after the piece of music or as part of the podcast if the work is the primary draw and/or a substantial amount of the podcast.
-An important thing to note about Creative Commons NonCommercially licensed content is that, under the license, the licensor retains the right to collect royalties through statutory and voluntary collective rights management schemes for commercial uses of their content. In other words, if you are a for-profit podcaster you will likely still need to obtain the necessary permissions for your use of Creative Commons NonCommercially-licensed music. Learn more about music-related rights in Section 1.2.7 - &ldquo;[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Using_Music.|Using Music]]&rdquo; - of this Guide.  </li>
+An important thing to note about Creative Commons NonCommercially licensed content is that, under the license, the licensor retains the right to collect royalties through statutory and voluntary collective rights management schemes for commercial uses of their content. In other words, if you are a for-profit podcaster you will likely still need to obtain the necessary permissions for your use of Creative Commons NonCommercially-licensed music. Learn more about music-related rights in Section 1.2.7 - &ldquo;[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Using_Music|Using Music]]&rdquo; - of this Guide.  </li>
 </ul>

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ===Why Are Publicity Rights Relevant?===
-Publicity rights allow individuals to control how their voice, image or likeness is used for commercial purposes in public. These rights are relevant to podcasting because, in many instances, a podcaster will conduct audio or video interviews, perform plays, sing songs, and produce all sorts of other spoken or visual content. When transmitting this sort of content, including the voices or images of anyone other than yourself, you may need to get permission from those individuals if you are using their voice or images for commercial purposes. For example, if you have images from an interview with someone on your podcast and you use those images to promote your podcast, solicit advertising, or make other commercial uses, you may need consent from the individual appearing in the image. Learn more in Section 1.3 - &ldquo;[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Publicity_Rights_Issues.|Publicity Rights Issues]].&rdquo;
+Publicity rights allow individuals to control how their voice, image or likeness is used for commercial purposes in public. These rights are relevant to podcasting because, in many instances, a podcaster will conduct audio or video interviews, perform plays, sing songs, and produce all sorts of other spoken or visual content. When transmitting this sort of content, including the voices or images of anyone other than yourself, you may need to get permission from those individuals if you are using their voice or images for commercial purposes. For example, if you have images from an interview with someone on your podcast and you use those images to promote your podcast, solicit advertising, or make other commercial uses, you may need consent from the individual appearing in the image. Learn more in Section 1.3 - &ldquo;[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Publicity_Rights_Issues|Publicity Rights Issues]].&rdquo;
 ===How Is Trademark Law Relevant?===

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 ===What Other Issues Should I Be Thinking About?===
-As a podcaster, you will face many of the same legal questions that bloggers face. EFF's Legal Guide to Blogging (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/) addresses many additional issues that you should consider. These include: rights related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Communications Decency Act (aka &ldquo;Section 230), on-line defamation, privacy, reporter's privilege, media access, election law, and labor law.
+As a podcaster, you will face many of the same legal questions that bloggers face. EFF's Legal Guide to Blogging (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/) addresses many additional issues that you should consider. These include: rights related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Communications Decency Act (aka &ldquo;Section 230&rdquo;), on-line defamation, privacy, reporter's privilege, media access, election law, and labor law.
 ==Copyright Issues.==

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 For unpublished works that were published after January 1, 1978 and on or before December 31, 2002, copyright protection was extended so that if the copyright holder of an unpublished civil war diary published the work by December 31, 2002, then, the new published version of the diary would gain copyright protection through December 31, 2047. After the December 31, 2002, deadline, the standard term for all unpublished works became life of the author plus seventy years. This means that as of January 1, 2003, all unpublished works that continued to be unpublished and not registered with the Copyright Office as of January 1, 1978 of authors who have been dead for more than seventy years are in the public domain. As of 2006, this means all unpublished works of authors who died before 1936 (and that were not published for the first time between 1978 and 2002) are part of the public domain.
-If you are a podcaster thinking about using unpublished materials found on the Internet, here are a couple of tips on how to deal with unpublished works. First, make note that if the unpublished work you want to use was published between 1978 and 2002, to obtain the extended period of protection that is given to these kinds of works under US copyright law, it had to be published by the copyright holder. This means that some works that were published during that period did not gain additional protection because someone other than the copyright holder published the work on the Internet. Second, understand that this extended protection applies to both U.S. and foreign works. Every unpublished work from around the world of authors who died before 1936 is in the public domain in the United States. That means that the unpublished diary of an Australian who died in 1930 will be in the public domain in the U.S.; however, that same diary may still be subject to copyright under Australian copyright law in Australia. So, if you are marketing or targeting your podcast for a particular territory, you need to be aware of the copyright laws in that country as well as in the U.S. Moreover, because of the borderless nature of the Internet, you can't really stop your podcast from distributing to Australia, in which case you may be violating laws in another country (We raise this here as a flag, but please note that the scope of this Guide does not cover international copyright questions at this time). Third, often websites have not included when they posted a particular unpublished work, and so one is not sure whether the unpublished work was considered published before the December 31, 2002 deadline. If you find yourself in that situation, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (www.archive.org/) is very useful to help determine what material was published on the Internet before the December 31, 2002. This tool tells you when a particular page or image was first put onto the web.
+If you are a podcaster thinking about using unpublished materials found on the Internet, here are a couple of tips on how to deal with unpublished works. First, make note that if the unpublished work you want to use was published between 1978 and 2002, to obtain the extended period of protection that is given to these kinds of works under US copyright law, it had to be published by the copyright holder. This means that some works that were published during that period did not gain additional protection because someone other than the copyright holder published the work on the Internet. Second, understand that this extended protection applies to both U.S. and foreign works. Every unpublished work from around the world of authors who died before 1936 is in the public domain in the United States. That means that the unpublished diary of an Australian who died in 1930 will be in the public domain in the U.S.; however, that same diary may still be subject to copyright under Australian copyright law in Australia. So, if you are marketing or targeting your podcast for a particular territory, you need to be aware of the copyright laws in that country as well as in the U.S. Moreover, because of the borderless nature of the Internet, you can't really stop your podcast from distributing to Australia, in which case you may be violating laws in another country (We raise this here as a flag, but please note that the scope of this Guide does not cover international copyright questions at this time). Third, often websites have not included when they posted a particular unpublished work, and so one is not sure whether the unpublished work was considered published before the December 31, 2002 deadline. If you find yourself in that situation, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine http://www.archive.org/) is very useful to help determine what material was published on the Internet before the December 31, 2002. This tool tells you when a particular page or image was first put onto the web.
 (c) ''Dedication To Public Domain'' -- Finally, a work may be in the public domain because an author or copyright owner has dedicated their work to the public domain, such as for example, by using the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/).

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 8 May 2006
Line 619:		Line 619:

	http://www.magnatune.com		http://www.magnatune.com
		+
		+	http://promonet.iodalliance.com (a service from IODA (Independent Online Distribution Alliance) that offers podcasters, and others access to thousands of pre-cleared tracks from independent record labels)
		+
		+	http://www.pumpaudio.com/index.html (proper licensing of independent music for use in advertising, television, film and the web)
		+
		+	http://www.garageband.com/htdb/feed/partners.html (music supplier with large catalog of CC music)
		+
		+	http://www.gcast.com (free and simple service that provides entire GarageBand catalog that is podcast safe)

	==Websites With Legal Information On The Issues In This Guide.==		==Websites With Legal Information On The Issues In This Guide.==

@@ Line 328: / Line 328: @@
 If you a video podcaster, then the possible licenses you will need to include a musical work with images in your video podcast fall into three categories: (i) synchronization (or &ldquo;sync&rdquo;) licenses (ii) &ldquo;master use&rdquo; licenses, and (iii) &ldquo;videogram&rdquo; licenses. Like the licenses for reproduction and public digital transmission of sound recordings (see previous section), these licenses do not fall within the mechanical licensing schemes and must be individually negotiated. Also, it should be noted that these licenses stem from &ldquo;traditional&rdquo; practices in a world pre-podcasting and pre-internet (e.g., many of these licenses relate to movie-releases and television broadcasting) and their specific application to the podcasting/digital world is not obvious.
-(i) ''Sync License.'' The sync license is negotiated with the copyright owner (likely the music publisher) directly. The Harry Fox Agency discontinued sync licensing in 2002 (see http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseSynchronization.jsp). Traditionally, the sync license allows you to &ldquo;synchronize&rdquo; a musical work with an audiovisual work, such as a motion picture or television program, and to make copies of the resulting audiovisual work. Also traditionally, these licenses came in only two flavors: a theatrical sync licenses and a television sync license. This means that under a traditional sync license, you may only distribute the licensed copies for the specific purpose of either exhibiting the audiovisual work in motion picture theaters or broadcasting the work on television. It is not clear how exactly these licenses will be applied in the podcasting context. To date, no specific sync license scheme exists for podcasts or other digital transmissions.
+(i) ''Sync License.'' The sync license is negotiated with the copyright owner (likely the music publisher) directly. The Harry Fox Agency discontinued sync licensing in 2002 (see http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseSynchronization.jsp). Traditionally, the sync license allows you to &ldquo;synchronize&rdquo; a musical work with an audiovisual work, such as a motion picture or television program, and to make copies of the resulting audiovisual work. Also traditionally, these licenses came in only two flavors: a theatrical sync license and a television sync license. This means that under a traditional sync license, you may only distribute the licensed copies for the specific purpose of either exhibiting the audiovisual work in motion picture theaters or broadcasting the work on television. It is not clear how exactly these licenses will be applied in the podcasting context. To date, no specific sync license scheme exists for podcasts or other digital transmissions.
 Given this ambiguity, the most conservative route in protecting yourself from legal attack is to consider your video podcast as a &ldquo;theatrical release&rdquo; or a &ldquo;television broadcast.&rdquo; Doing so means that you may be required to obtain a sync license when you want to include a musical work with the images in your podcast. If you are required to do so, then you should contact the copyright owner (likely the music publisher) directly to get permission to synchronize the musical work with the video track of your podcast.
@@ Line 334: / Line 334: @@
 (ii) ''Master Use License.'' The master use license is negotiated with the record company. It applies only if you want to use a particular recording of a musical work with a video image that you are putting into your video podcast. For example, it applies when you want to use Madonna's recording of &ldquo;Sorry&rdquo; in your video podcast. When you do that, you will be required to get permission from the record company to use the &ldquo;master recording&rdquo; of the song for inclusion in your video podcast. The &ldquo;master use license&rdquo; does not apply if you make your own recording of &ldquo;Sorry&rdquo; for your video podcast.
-(iii) ''Videogram License.'' Traditionally, a videogram (= &ldquo;video&rdquo; + &ldquo;program&rdquo;) license is used to describe a license for programs contained in audiovisual devices, like videotapes, laser discs or DVDs - primarily intended for sale to the public for in-home use. Whether a podcast is considered legally the same as a videotape, laser disc or DVD remains to be determined. Viewing the risks conservatively, you may need a separate &ldquo;videogram&rdquo; licenses from the music publisher and the record company if you plan to distribute your podcast to the public. The videogram license is necessary because the music publisher's permission under the traditional sync license does not extend to copies of your podcast that you distribute to the public. Likewise, the record company's permission under the master use license to use the recording of a song in the podcast does not authorize releasing the podcast for distribution to the public. The important notion here is that the trigger for this requirement is that your content is made available to the public generally, and not merely for a specific purpose like theatrical release or television broadcast.
+(iii) ''Videogram License.'' Traditionally, a videogram (= &ldquo;video&rdquo; + &ldquo;program&rdquo;) license is used to describe a license for programs contained in audiovisual devices - like videotapes, laser discs or DVDs - primarily intended for sale to the public for in-home use. Whether a podcast is considered legally the same as a videotape, laser disc or DVD remains to be determined. Viewing the risks conservatively, you may need a separate &ldquo;videogram&rdquo; license from the music publisher and the record company if you plan to distribute your podcast to the public (which, of course, is how most podcasts are distributed). The videogram license is necessary because the music publisher's permission under the traditional sync license may not extend to copies of your podcast that you distribute to the public. Likewise, the record company's permission under the master use license to use the recording of a song in the podcast may not authorize releasing the podcast for distribution to the public. The important notion here is that the trigger for this requirement is that your content is made available to the public generally, and not merely for a specific purpose like theatrical release or television broadcast.
 ====The &ldquo;Fair Use&rdquo; Exception.====
@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
 Generally, you can violate a trademark in at least in two ways: by direct infringement, and by dilution.
-Direct infringement occurs when you use someone else's trademark (often a competitor's trademark) in a way that is "likely to cause consumer confusion" as to the source, affiliation or sponsorship between you and the trademark owner. This might occur if you use a famous trademark to describe your podcast, and the trademark owner thinks that your podcast is sufficiently related to their product or service, that a listener might conclude that the podcast comes from or is endorsed by the trademark owner, when that is not the case. For example, if you named your music-review podcast "The Rolling Stone Music Hour", you may find that Rolling Stone magazine will be unhappy with you and perhaps send you a cease and desist letter (among other possible unpleasant things). If however, your podcast had to do with gardening instead of music (e.g., Rolling Stone Gardening Hour), your risk of infringement would be much smaller, because listeners are unlikely to think that the well-known music magazine was sponsoring your gardening-related podcast.
+Direct infringement occurs when you use someone else's trademark (often a competitor's trademark) in a way that is "likely to cause consumer confusion" as to the source, affiliation or sponsorship between you and the trademark owner. This might occur if you use a trademark to describe your podcast, and the trademark owner thinks that your podcast is sufficiently related to their product or service, that a listener might conclude that the podcast comes from or is endorsed by the trademark owner, when that is not the case. For example, if you named your music-review podcast "The Rolling Stone Music Hour", you may find that Rolling Stone magazine will be unhappy with you and perhaps send you a cease and desist letter (among other possible unpleasant things). If however, your podcast had to do with gardening instead of music (e.g., Rolling Stone Gardening Hour), your risk of infringement would be much smaller, because listeners are unlikely to think that the well-known music magazine was sponsoring your gardening-related podcast.
 Dilution can occur if the character of the trademark becomes clouded by an unwanted association, either through tarnishment, which occurs when a famous mark is used to promote a product that is considered offensive (e.g., the mark "DISNEYLAND" being used to market an X-rated podcast), or through blurring, which means the use of a famous trademark causes consumers to blur the two companies in their minds (e.g., naming your podcast the "Nike Hemorrhoid Discussion Group"). In a dilution claim, a trademark owner must prove actual dilution, not merely the likelihood of dilution. Note that dilution does not occur from a &ldquo;nominative&rdquo; or informational use of a trademark, such as a critical review or what is known as a &ldquo;descriptive&rdquo; use of a trademark (i.e., using it in a sentence to discuss Nike). But even if consumers are not at all confused about the source, a trademark owner can have a claim for dilution.
@@ Line 409: / Line 409: @@
 Generally you do not need permission to make an informational (also called "editorial" or "nominative") use of a trademark. You also do not need permission if you're making a comparative advertisement (however, comparative ad situations often provoke trademark owners into legal action even when their trademark claims are weak especially if your statements about their product and your claims regarding your product are not wholly accurate). You will need permission if you're making a commercial use of the mark.
-You may also identify the trademark of another (such as your employer or former employer) if the reference is accurate and does not cause confusion. For example, &ldquo;I a Sobert Roble, and I work for SicroMoft&rdquo; is acceptable if the context does not falsely suggest that the employer (here, SicroMoft) endorses the podcast. But using a title for a podcast such as &ldquo;SicroMoft's Sobert Roble Speaks Out On The Issues&rdquo; may suggest endorsement by the employer, and should therefore be avoided if that is not the case.
+You may also identify the trademark of another (such as your employer or former employer) if the reference is accurate and does not cause confusion. For example, &ldquo;I am Sobert Roble, and I work for SicroMoft&rdquo; is acceptable if the context does not falsely suggest that the employer (here, SicroMoft) endorses the podcast. But using a title for a podcast such as &ldquo;SicroMoft's Sobert Roble Speaks Out On The Issues&rdquo; may suggest endorsement by the employer, and should therefore be avoided if that is not the case.
 One other thing to remember is that you are not under an obligation to identify each and every trademark as a &ldquo;registered&rdquo; trademark. You can even use a trademark in the title of your podcast as long as it is not the title of series of podcasts. So, for example, you can title a single podcast &ldquo;TRADEMARK ATTRIBUTION FOR DUMMIES&rdquo; and not violate the trademark in the &ldquo;For Dummies&rdquo; books (see http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/archives/2006/02/trademark_attri.html).
@@ Line 513: / Line 513: @@
 ==A (Very, Very) Brief History.==
-Podcasting's roots reportedly date back to 2001, and are closely tied to the development of blogs (or web logs). It developed from the desire to have downloadable audio and video content delivered automatically to your digital media player (aka your iPod). In addition to people interested in providing content for podcasts, many technologies had to be in place for this to work including generally available high-speed Internet access, MP3 formats, software that automatically tells you when a podcast/blog update has occurred, and digital media players. According to Wikipedia, the term &ldquo;Podcasting&rdquo; was first used as a synonym for audioblogging or weblog-based amateur radio in February 2004. One marker of podcasting's astronomical growth is that in September 2004 a Google search on the word &ldquo;podcasts&rdquo; resulted in 24 hits (see http://www.itgarage.com/node/462). Today, that same Google search results in 115 million hits (January 16, 2005) (see http://www.google.com/search?q=podcasts). So, with the fast growth of this technology, legal issues are ripe for consideration.
+Podcasting's roots reportedly date back to 2001, and are closely tied to the development of blogs (or web logs). It developed from the desire to have downloadable audio and video content delivered automatically to your digital media player (eg., your iPod). In addition to people interested in providing content for podcasts, many technologies had to be in place for this to work including generally available high-speed Internet access, MP3 formats, software that automatically tells you when a podcast/blog update has occurred, and digital media players. According to Wikipedia, the term &ldquo;Podcasting&rdquo; was first used as a synonym for audioblogging or weblog-based amateur radio in February 2004. One marker of podcasting's astronomical growth is that in September 2004 a Google search on the word &ldquo;podcasts&rdquo; resulted in 24 hits (see http://www.itgarage.com/node/462). Today, that same Google search results in 115 million hits (January 16, 2005) (see http://www.google.com/search?q=podcasts). So, with the fast growth of this technology, legal issues are ripe for consideration.
 ==What Is Podcasting? What Are Podcasts?==

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 27 April 2006
Line 24:		Line 24:
	==[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide_Acknowledgements\|Acknowledgements]]==		==[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide_Acknowledgements\|Acknowledgements]]==

−	==[[~~Podcasting_Legal_Guide_Forward~~\|~~Forward~~, By Lawrence Lessig]]==	+	==[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide_Foreword\|Foreword, By Lawrence Lessig]]==

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 http://cyber.harvard.edu/</p>
-=ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS=
+==[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide_Acknowledgements|Acknowledgements]]==
-Writing this Guide was made possible through the assistance, support and feedback of many. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet &amp; Society provided a forum for discussion and support of this project. Lawrence Lessig, the program's founder, and Jennifer Stisa Granick, the Executive Director, have created an atmosphere that has fostered my growth as a lawyer and my ability to take on a project like this. I am extremely grateful for the support of my co-author, Mia Garlick, who was instrumental in drafting portions of the Guide, acting as a liaison with Harvard's Berkman Center, and being a supportive colleague on many fronts. The Berkman Center provided much of the research and writing on the music section, which was a tremendous help. I am also thankful for Lauren Gelman, who among other things, spearheads the speaker series at Stanford where I presented my initial work on the Guide in November 2005, and who provided feedback on early drafts of the material contained in the Guide. A number of other people (podcasters, lawyers, and some who are both) have helped with feedback on the early drafts including Elizabeth Townsend Gard (http://academiccopyright.typepad.com/), Joe Gratz (http://www.joegratz.net/), Denise Howell (http://bgbg.blogspot.com/), Chris MacDonald (http://blindingflashes.blogs.com/indie_feed/), and Matthew May (http://www.staccatomusic.org/), Martin Schwimmer (http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/), and Matthew Wayne Selznick (http://www.mwsmedia.com/). The Guide is certainly a better product as a result of their feedback and comments. Finally, I am very thankful for Creative Commons' assistance in hosting the web-version of the Guide, and in particular I am thankful for Mike Linksvayer and Alex Roberts who created the cool logo and took care of all the technical details of getting the Guide on line, and putting the wiki together.
+==[[Podcasting_Legal_Guide_Forward|Forward, By Lawrence Lessig]]==
 =INTRODUCTION=

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 17 April 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Category:legal]] [[Category:podcasting]] [[Category:license]] [[Category:guide]]
	<div style="border: 1px dashed #06f; margin: 0.5em auto 1em; padding:1em; margin-left:2em">Unlike other articles here this guide is licensed under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5]. A pdf version is [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide.pdf available]. Please provide feedback at [[Talk:Podcasting_Legal_Guide]] (requires registration).</div>		<div style="border: 1px dashed #06f; margin: 0.5em auto 1em; padding:1em; margin-left:2em">Unlike other articles here this guide is licensed under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5]. A pdf version is [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide.pdf available]. Please provide feedback at [[Talk:Podcasting_Legal_Guide]] (requires registration).</div>