[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Jun 2 08:46:55 EDT 2008
On Monday 02 June 2008 07:05:06 shell_layer-creativecommons at yahoo.com.au
wrote:
> I know I've already put in my two cents, but here's some more:
>
> CC licences follow copyright. Copyright restricts you from making a
> copy of something. Copyright doesn't attach to ideas; if I tell you
> about my idea, copyright doesn't affect whether you can write it
> down. Copyright only applies to an expression of an idea - something
> written, recorded, etc.
>
> So, it is that expression of your idea - the photo, the CD, the
> printed book - that you CC-license. The only reason that copyright
> seems to attach to the idea is because it attaches to all expressions
> of that idea, and all derivatives from those expressions, because
> copyright applies automatically.
>
> CC licences don't apply automatically; they only apply to copies
> (expressions of your idea) when you apply them. Any copies that do
> not have a licence applied are not licensed.
Which is all well and good, but the contention is that you are applying them
with the license wording.
If we want the behaviour you suggest instead of the other behaviour suggested,
(and I think I like the behaviour you propose unlesssomeone can give me a
good reason)why not change this language:
'"Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of
this License including without limitation any production in the literary,...'
to this:
"Work" means the instance of the literary and/or artistic work offered under
the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the
literary, ... and any copies of said instance.
and clear up the whole mess right in the licenser wording itself. Is there a
reason not to spell things out in more detail in the license wording?
>
> > But what is the "work" in this case? One does not copyright ideas,
> > but
> > only expressions of those ideas. The idea of an image is NOT the
> > work,
> > because the idea is not copyrightable.
> >
> > Thus, some particular image IS the work.
Are you sure about that? Others seem to say otherwise. And how does your
theory affect registration of a work and the ability to get different damages
in suits brought over registered works and non-registered works?
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list