[cc-community] Freely licensed content question(s)

Fred Benenson fred.benenson at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 12:03:45 EDT 2007


On 10/24/07, rob at robmyers.org <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>
> IANAL, TINLA.
>
> Quoting Tim Cowlishaw <tim at timcowlishaw.co.uk>:
>
> > IANAL, and may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the first
> > scenario is allowed as the Sharealike / copyleft clause of the CC SA
> > and GFDL licences applies to derivative works, and the inclusion of a
> > photo in a magazine such as 'people' is not considered a derivative,
> > therefore the sharealike clause is not triggered, and the magazine can
> > keep their ARR copyright.
>
> The FSF take the opposite view with regard to the FDL; including an
> image *does* create a derivative. So inclusion of a BY-SA photograph
> in a work also containing FDL work would be impossible (modulo Fair
> Use and collective rather than derivative work...) because you cannot
> relicense the BY-SA work as FDL. Yet.


But can't you dual license the work? Isn't this why the majority of BY-SA
work on Wikimedia Commons is released under both licenses?


Both CC's and the FSF's positions on whether including an unaltered
> image creates a derivative work have precedent in the US legal system
> so neither way of doing things is more legally valid than the other.


Agreed, and this is answer is unsatisfying and despite one that I'm
increasingly having to give.

I don't know what the situation on use of photographs to illustrate
> articles is in the UK or elsewhere is but I'd be interested to find out.
>
> - Rob.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20071024/7ac4e743/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list