[cc-community] Different licenses for different versions of a work
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Jun 30 18:45:58 EDT 2009
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 17:26:03 attila kelényi wrote:
> 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?
There are at least a few discussions on this subject on either this list or
cc-licenses or both.
It may be worth the research.
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list