[cc-community] Use of CC Images in a photo gallery
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Jun 24 17:39:58 EDT 2009
My suggestion for a couple of years now is to drop this derivative versus
collection distinction and speak of a derivative or a work "containing" the
by-sa work that also gets a copyright and to have the by-sa have to apply to
that "containing" work.
So, you could include BY-SA and non-BY-SA works on a CD or in a book where
the "container" (CD, book, etc.) does not warrant a copyright without kicking
off the SA bit, but if the "container" gets/deserves a copyright then the
license must be BY-SA.
This would, for instance, cause photos licensed BY-SA to work more like audio
recordings licensed BY-SA.
all the best,
drew
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 16:10:55 Brian Rowe wrote:
> 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
More information about the cc-community
mailing list