[cc-community] Different licenses for different versions of a work

attila kelényi tekatana2005 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 17:26:03 EDT 2009


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Tisza Gergő <gtisza at gmail.com> wrote:

> Authors sometimes offer an image in smaller resolution under a free CC
> license,
> and the full version under a noncommercial one. Is this practice legally
> solid?
> My impression always was that the license is bound to the abstract entity
> called
> "work", and specific images are only different formats of that, as far as
> they
> don't contain creative modifications. Doesn't this sort of dual-licensing
> practice present the danger that someone takes the full version for
> commercial
> use and says "hey, you licensed it under CC-BY! It's the same work!"?
>

I remember this issue came up once on the cci list regarding music files. I
think if there is an obvious difference between the two version of the work
(ie thumbnail and original high resolution photo) then dual licensing can
make sense.
(Of course there's the "danger" is always there that someone claims to have
right to use a work violating the license it was published with (eg the
cases of Adam Curry vs. tabloids), but that's another question.)
Can anyone give a clarification on this, and maybe give a good example when
this sort of dual-licensing is used in practice?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20090630/89fc28e0/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list