[cc-community] Use of CC Images in a photo gallery

Brian Rowe brian at freedomforip.org
Wed Jun 24 16:10:55 EDT 2009


The definition CC used is built on the definition in the US Copyright act,
with some extra clarifications.  This term has been litigated a bit; one of
the more fun cases was *Greenberg v. National Geographic
Society*<http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422703800>while
* New York Times Co. v.
Tasini<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Tasini>
*, is another (initially heard by judge Sonia
Sotomayor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor>then overturned
by the Supreme Court). It is a bit fuzy because copyright
law is a lot fuzzy.  It is a challenge to try and create absolute certainty
out copyright law.

Copyright Act Section 101 Definitions:
> A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or
> encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
>

Language in CC License: (from BY-SA US
3.0<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode>
> )
> *"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
> encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along
> with one or more other contributions, constituting separate and independent
> works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
> defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>



On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Paul Houle <paul at ontology2.com> wrote:

> Nathan Yergler wrote:
> >
> > The license states that a "collection" is not considered an adaptation
> > for the purpose of the license and therefore does not engage the SA
> > clause.  See section 1a-b
> > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode).
> >
>     I find the "collection" concept to be disturbing,  since it's fuzzy
> around the edges.  I mean,  it has to include things like:
>
> "...For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work,
> performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in
> timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an
> Adaptation for the purpose of this License"
>
>    This is obviously discriminatory against a television show as
> compared to a radio program.  It's also discriminatory against the
> existing motion picture medium as compared to media which have yet to be
> discovered.
>
>    Has anybody tested this stuff in court?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>



-- 
Brian Rowe
Juris Doctorate
Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge
(206) 335-8577 (Cell)

Public Knowledge
www.publicknowledge.org

Access To Justice Technology Principles
www.ATJWeb.org

Freedom for IP
www.FreedomforIP.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20090624/06d86e7c/attachment.html 


More information about the cc-community mailing list