[cc-community] Use of CC Images in a photo gallery
Gisle Hannemyr
gisle at ifi.uio.no
Thu Jun 25 20:10:20 EDT 2009
On 24.06.2009 23:43, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:54:18 Paul Houle wrote:
>> I could use CC-BY-SA images in a book I publish, grant no CC-BY-SA
>> rights to the readers, maybe just put a note in saying that they're
>> welcome to use the CC-BY-SA images... That's wrong.
No. That's right.
> From all prior discussions here, to my understanding, that's how
> it stands now
Correct.
> and I don't like it.
>
> I have offered a possible solution but am willing to hear others
> and reasons why my proposed solution can't / shouldn't fly.
> 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.
This has been discussed to death in the past, but here are my
main objections again:
1. The derivative vs. collection distinction is not invented by
CC. It is embedded in the Berne Convention Article 2(3) and (5)
and therefore also in the national law of all signature nations.
To drop the derivative versus collection distinction will make
CC non-compliant with the Berne convention. This a very bad
idea, as the Berne convention is (IMHO) a very sensible
and widely recognised framework for copyright.
Also, breaking with the Berne convention will certainly increase
the scepticism towards CC in Europe, and provide the now mariginal
pundits that argue that CC is an evil US plot to destroy
/droit d'auteur/ as we know with a lot of substance to their
argument.
2. It will not work out well in practice. It will by a single
stroke make all the SA-licences violently viral. I understand
that Paul Houle and you hopes that by making them so, the
viral properties of SA will automatically spread CC far and
wide.
The real effect, in all likelyhood, will be the opposite:
If the mere act of using a CC BY-SA image forces authors to
put their /own/ original and unmodified work under CC BY-SA,
many authors would prefer to source their illustrations
elsewhere.
3. Your proposed change will be very problematic, definition-wise.
The distinction between a derivative and collection is in most
cases very clear: You modify it - it's derivative. You just
include it without changing it - it's a collection. (Syncing
music and images is a borderline case, and the clarification
in the license is a natural one that follows from case law.)
How do you propose to define "containing work"? For example,
if I use a CC BY-SA image to illustrate an article in a newspaper,
is the "containing work" that is supposted to be affected by the
viral properties of the license the article, the page, the
section of the newspaper containing the image, or the entire
edition of the newspaper? IAnd if we look at composite or
hyperlinked media, it becomes even more difficult to draw up
the lines that constrains the "containing work".
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
"Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan
More information about the cc-community
mailing list