[cc-community] Use of CC Images in a photo gallery
shell_layer-creativecommons at yahoo.com.au
shell_layer-creativecommons at yahoo.com.au
Fri Jun 26 07:45:10 EDT 2009
A book can have different copyright arrangements to the individual components of it.
If we assume (for the sake of argument) that a book containing BY-SA images is a collection, not an adaptation, and you produce such a book, but you don't license it as BY-SA, you still have to license the images BY-SA.
People aren't free to copy your book - the text, etc - but you must grant them full BY-SA permission to copy and reuse the images.
If the book isn't considered to be an adaptation, then that sounds fair to me.
Eliminating the 'collection' vs 'adaptation' distinction would be a Bad Thing, because although SA is good, it makes reuse - and especially combination - more complex and difficult. You couldn't, for example, gather and publish a gallery of CC images, noting the licence of each one, if SA demanded that the whole gallery and everything in it be licensed SA. Even keeping a mixture of, say, BY-SA photos and GNU FDL photos in one folder on your hard drive might be considered a collection, and should not be subject to SA.
Carl
--- On Fri, 26/6/09, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> From: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle at ifi.uio.no>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Use of CC Images in a photo gallery
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Received: Friday, 26 June, 2009, 10:10 AM
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
More information about the cc-community
mailing list