[cc-community] License on vector and raster version of the same work?
Pieter Roosens
pieter at roosensdesign.com
Fri Mar 28 11:22:49 EDT 2008
If you have a pixel file and don't make it bigger or smaller, it will
(should) look exactly the same as a vector file of the same design on
the screen.
On the other hand, what Denver says about Magnatune is also right I
guess.
So this is rather confusing to me.
Hmm... Where are the lawyers on this list ..?
Pieter
Op 28-mrt-08, om 16:00 heeft Denver Gingerich het volgende geschreven:
> I personally think raster graphics and vector graphics of the same
> image are different fixations so you can license them differently.
> This is similar to musicians licensing sound recordings produced at
> different bit rates under different licenses. I believe this is what
> sites like Magnatune do. You can download a 128 kbps song free, but a
> 320 kbps version of the song will cost you (I don't know if the
> figures are correct, but that's the general idea).
>
> I'm really not sure how you could argue the other way (that raster and
> vector graphics are the same fixation). It is always possible to make
> a vector-based image large enough such that it looks much better (less
> pixelated) than a raster version of the same image. While it is the
> same design, it does not "look the same", as Pieter suggested.
>
> Of course, IANAL, but hopefully the information is useful anyway.
>
> Denver
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Ocetalo
> <zelus.et.radix at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Pieter. Yeah, that's one of my doubts. They may look the
>> same but
>> they are in totally different image formats, I mean, one of them
>> is a bunch
>> of bits and the other is a bunch of operations so to me they are two
>> different things.
>> Are there more opinions?
>>
>> For the other people I know you are not lawyers but I ask your
>> help because
>> I don't know who else to ask. Also there are few lawyers in this
>> country who
>> can really give some advice about this (I guess most of them are
>> not even
>> aware of CC licenses).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Pieter Roosens
>> <pieter at roosensdesign.com>
>> wrote:
>>> IANAL, but it seems clear to me that it is the same.
>>> It doesn't matter which technique you use to show it.
>>> It's the same design and it looks the same. One thing.
>>>
>>> Pieter
>>>
>>> Op 23-mrt-08, om 04:29 heeft Ocetalo het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Greetings
>>>>
>>>> Let's say I make a vector graphic design then I export it to
>>>> raster, thus having two different versions of the same work. Let's
>>>> say I waive my copy and moral rights on the raster version to a
>>>> third party, but keep the original vector myself because I want to
>>>> license it under a CC later. I want to know if the vector and
>>>> raster version of a same graphic design can be considered as
>>>> different things to such an extent that I can register them under
>>>> different licenses, or they're "tied" so registering one of them
>>>> under X license also "drags" the other the same.
> _______________________________________________
> 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