[cc-community] Question about Share Alike

Kevin Phillips (home) tacet at qmpublishing.com
Sat Aug 30 15:25:48 EDT 2008


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "drew Roberts" <zotz at 100jamz.com>
To: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-community] Question about Share Alike


> On Saturday 30 August 2008 13:39:49 Fred Benenson wrote:
>> Right, the problem over what constitutes a derivative work of a 
>> photograph
>> (e.g. is associating a photograph with a textual work enough to create a
>> new derivative?) is unclear, and there is conflicting case law over this 
>> in
>> the states. It's enough to make me reconsider using SA and just go with
>> plain Attribution because I'm sick of giving grey answers to reporters 
>> and
>> publishers who want to use my photographs.
>
> Well, I might want them to pay unless the overall work was BY-SA as well, 
> but
> nothing stops you from giving permission. You could also tell them that it
> would be safer to negotiate another license or to get their lawyers 
> opinion.
>
> I too have been thinking of switching to a simple BY instead of my 
> preferred
> BY-SA when it comes to photos lately. More for the fact that I think BY-SA
> seems weak enough when it comes to photos as to be basically useless. I 
> would
> like to hear of real world uses where the SA part of BY-SA kicked in and 
> did
> something a simple BY would not have in the realm of photos.
>
> Does anyone know of any?

Yup.  My wife just had a picture published by a UK music technology magazine 
(due out this month).  She has her pics all BY-SA licensed on Flickr and has 
a note in her profile as to how she understands this to function.  Kudos to 
the magazine for contacting her after reading her profile and asking for 
permission, and offering their standard rate for a single image ($50).  She 
negotiated this standard rate plus a copy of the magazine for me, I love my 
wife lol ;)

The picture was of Björk's musicians playing with their instruments in NYC, 
in this instance I think it was all about Reactable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h-RhyopUmc

Sorry this is all a bit vague on my part, it just happened recently and 
because my wife is currently in NYC I've yet to find out the precise detail.

Kev

>>
>> F
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> <richard at systemed.net>wrote:
>> > Terry Hancock wrote:
>> > > My suspicion is that you think "NC" is easier, because you haven't
>> > > really "opened the can" yet. ;-)  NC _sounds_ simple, but it isn't --
>> > > there's all kinds of weird and counter-intuitive edge cases.
>> > >
>> > > The "SA" licenses, though, are fairly explicit, which, IMHO, makes
>> > > them
>> > > a lot easier to figure out.
>> >
>> > Well, except for the "what's a Collective Work and what's a
>> > Derivative Work" question (common to NC, of course)...
>> >
>> > cheers
>> > Richard
>> > (replying from digest, apologies for munged refs)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cc-community mailing list
>> > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
>> !DSPAM:48b9860a105531804284693!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
> 



More information about the cc-community mailing list