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

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Jun 26 07:43:22 EDT 2009


On Thursday 25 June 2009 20:10:20 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> 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.

I don't see this at all. All that is being proposed it to key off of a 
different condition upon which the right to copy is granted. I don't see why 
you feel this is breaking anything. Can you explain further?
>
> 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.

Hopefully, at least as violent as is the case now for music used in a video. 
Has anyone done the work to determine what percentage of "uses" kicks off the 
SA clause for various types of works?

> 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.

I for one, at least, do not think this at all.
>
> 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.

Fine with me. There are lots of cc BY licensed photos out there anyway.
>
> 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.)

Why. Leave the definition up to copyright law. If the work my BY-SA work gets 
used in deserves a copyright as a work, the SAYclause kicks in, if there is 
no copyright, no SA requirement. Let each country's law determine 
what "containers" get copyrights and what don't.

Derivatives always kick in the SA requirement.
>
> 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?

Take it all the way up the chain until the "container" does not get a 
copyright. Leave it up to those wanting to use the SA works without kicking 
off the SA clause to go to the lawmakers and lobby for sane "container" 
copyright limitations.

> IAnd if we look at composite or 
> hyperlinked media, it becomes even more difficult to draw up
> the lines that constrains the "containing work".

Again, as a first pass, Leave it up to those wanting to use the SA works 
without kicking off the SA clause to go to the lawmakers and lobby for 
sane "container" copyright limitations.

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list