[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work
Fred Benenson
fred.benenson at gmail.com
Sat May 31 13:27:26 EDT 2008
This is correct so long as your assumption that including a photo inside a
film is creating a derivative work. It is unfortunately a little unclear if
BY-SA holds as much protection in the form of copyleft for photographs as it
does for music or text.
F
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Branislav Nakic <rudlavibizon at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, BY-SA seems like good compromise but may make, say a film producer,
> reluctant to put the photo (low res) in a film because he would need to
> license the film by the same CC license while with BY you could lose income
> once the photography becomes famous and the high res copy is released in the
> wild by a agreement with, say a calendar printing company. Am I correct?
>
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:54 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 31 May 2008 09:37:50 Branislav Nakic wrote:
>> > As I understand this CCplus seems just to add just more permissions in
>> case
>> > I use more restrictive license. My question has more to do with the
>> > premissive ones. I think that it would be a good way to promote myself
>> as
>> > an photographer using a permissive license like cc-by if I could license
>> > just the low res. copy but I'm not sure if it is really possible.
>>
>> One thing that would be possible no matter how this plays out is to
>> release
>> the low-res with BY and then only let the high res out when you have
>> a "total" that will make you happy... Of course BY-SA may give you a
>> little
>> more leverage and would give you a whole lot more if it is ever decided to
>> have it attach to another copyright arising anstead of to a derivative.
>>
>> all the best.
>>
>> drew
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Peter Brink <peter.brink at brinkdata.se>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > shell_layer-creativecommons at yahoo.com.au skrev:
>> > > > Anyone feel free to correct me, but as I understand it, the CC
>> > > > licence only applies to the lower-quality version. You don't attach
>> a
>> > > > licence to all copies of the work, you attach it to one copy (in
>> this
>> > > > case, the lower quality one).
>> > > >
>> > > > It would be perfectly reasonable to, eg, release low-quality photos
>> > > > under a CC licence (probably a noncommercial one), then charge money
>> > > > for high-quality copies. So, obviously the high-quality copies don't
>> > > > automatically get CC-licensed. Search for 'CCplus' on the Creative
>> > > > Commons site, and it's clear that different copies of material can
>> > > > have different permissions attached.
>> > >
>> > > Actually, what you license is the work. The term "work" is defined in
>> > > art. 1.h of the license. In this case the work is the photo. All
>> copies
>> > > of the work are thus licensed not just the copy that has a license
>> > > statement attached to it. What CCplus do is to make it simple to dual
>> > > licensing works.
>> > >
>> > > /Peter Brink
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > cc-community mailing list
>> > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>> >
>> > !DSPAM:48415513115231418070192!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080531/3f8d9108/attachment.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list