[cc-community] Extending CC into physical space

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Sun Mar 1 00:01:07 EST 2009


Well, the main question is whether or not the physical
thing is a copyright derivative of the original work.
If the thing is a derivative, then you just use something
like GNU-GPL and you're covered.

A statue is an artistic expression. If you make a statue
from a drawing, it's still an expression, so is a derivative.

(if it is a derivative, CC-SA sort of works, but creates
a loophole that the thing and the plans for the thing
are separate, and CC-SA doesn't require the plans to be
released if you modify the plans and release a new thing.
CC-SA just requires the thing to be CC-SA)

If the thing is not a derivative, then you've got other
problems.

Things that are not derivatives are functional things.
The paper description and plans may be covered by copyright,
but when you build it, the thing itself is considered
functional, and therefore not a copyright derivative.

Copyright law cannot extend into functional instances.

A common example of this is the electronic files used
to describe hardware. You can protect the files using
copyright. But someone else can modify them, create a
functional electronic circuit, sell the circuit, and
keep the modifications private. Because most copyleft
licenses only get triggered when the work is distributed,
and the electronic circuit is not a derivative, so selling
it is not distributing, so the license does not require
the modifications be made copyleft/public.

The only solution to this is to use something like the
Apple Public Source license which does not allow
private derivatives. This licence was designed to
close the loophole of server-side modifications to software.
Because the software remained on a server and wasn't
distributed, normal copyleft licenses didn't require
the modifications be made public. the APSL closes the
loophole by requiring all derivatives, even private
derivatives to be made public.

It prevents server side software from being abused.
And it also prevents plans for functional devices
from being held private as well.

The issues around all of this is explained here:

http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm


Greg


>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:15:10 +0100
> From: John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann at mx.uni-saarland.de>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Extending CC into physical space
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<20090227131510.sub25f1neo4kkgo0 at webmail.rz.uni-saarland.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=ISO-8859-1;	DelSp="Yes";
> 	format="flowed"
>
>
> Hi,
>
>> I'm going to work on CC and Open Design this year, so I'm following
>> this discussion with interest
>
> I wrote a little piece on extending free licensing into the world of
> patentable designs, it going to be in the 2nd edition of CCi's
> collective book (whenever that may come ...)
>
>>> I'm trying to work out how to use a CC licence outside of the pure
>>> "information" space.
>
> CC does extend a little, because media with CC content on them are
> covered as copies, and performances anyway.
>
>>> I produce model kits, and over time various kits cease to sell well
>>> enough to be worth producing as a business but demand never quite hits
>>> zero. So it's a classic long tail.
>
> there's also a group sharing designs for model trains, called Open
> Draw Community, see http://open-draw-community.de/odcbb/
>
> they have AFAIK some problems with people selling models based on
> drawings that are NC-licensed.
>
>>> My first thought was to release the artwork for some of the brass kits
>>> under a CC licence so that people can produce their own copies if they
>>> really really want or can find a group of people together to produce a
>>> set. That bit is fairly easy.
>>>
>>> Where it all goes pear shaped is that people will want to make
>>> modifications - to improve it, to produce with different matters, or
>>> different sizes etc.
>>>
>>> The CC attribution, sharealike license extends to the artwork but
>>> doesn't
>>> cover the results. Thus someone could improve the kit and providing
>>> they
>>> don't share the artwork itself take their improvements effectively
>>> out of
>>> the CC space.
>
> well, under german law the copyright protects the immaterial essence
> of the work, regardless of the form it is expressed in. So any 3D
> model of an artwork would still be a derivative (if it is not so far
> away from the artwork that the CC license on the artwork is out of the
> game anyway).
>
> I only see problems when it comes to features of the artwork in
> question that are outside of the scope of copyright, i. e.
> technological solutions laid down in a drawing and such things.
> That can only be dealt with on the basis of regimes around commercial
> rights in design. Although CC licenses from their wording cover those
> rights as well, they usually require some kind of registration or
> brand to come into existence in the first place. As copyright exists
> w/o registration, that is not something CC licenses talk about.
> Any approach towards real open design will need to integrate the
> registration requirements in some way or the other.
>
>>> I can clearly hack something out using the CC+ setup, but its a hack.
>
> I doubt that CC+ can be used to make up for a missing patent or other
> protection.
>
>>> Currently this is a fairly obscure area but with the rise in 3D
>>> printing
>>> the time before CC needs to have this debate about things like
>>> printing
>>> CC furniture or kitchen utensils is not long (at least in legal
>>> terms) so
>>> I was a bit suprised that it doesn't seem to be being addressed or
>>> even
>>> on anyones radar.
>
> it probably is on many peoples radar but not so much around copyright,
> at least not that I know.
>
>>> Is there a better way to hack CC to do this or does the world need a
>>> GNU
>>> Physical Object Licence or similar ?
>
> hacking CC must end in some very dirty hack ;)
> IMHO we in fact do need something like a Design Commons License, but
> that is more of an effort than with any copyright license.
>
>
> best regards,
>
> John Hendrik Weitzmann
> CC-DE Legal Project Lead
>
> Europ?ische EDV-Akademie | Institut f?r Rechtsinformatik
> des Rechts (EEAR)        | Universit?t des Saarlandes
> Torstra?e 43a            | Geb. A54
> D-66663 Merzig           | D-66123 Saarbr?cken
>
> john at creativecommons.de
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:58:16 +0000
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Extending CC into physical space
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<7fa25200902270458u45c8a922v87013ce44c6d5e39 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Where it all goes pear shaped is that people will want to make
>> modifications - to improve it, to produce with different matters, or
>> different sizes etc.
>>
>> The CC attribution, sharealike license extends to the artwork but
>> doesn't
>> cover the results. Thus someone could improve the kit and providing they
>> don't share the artwork itself take their improvements effectively out
>> of
>> the CC space.
>
> I suggest using the GNU General Public License rather than BY-SA.
>
> Declare the design to be the "source", and the item made from it to be
> the "binary".
>
> So if I take a design, modify it, and make it, anyone I give (or sell)
> the made version to can request the modified design from me under the
> terms of the GPL. That wouldn't be true with BY-SA, which doesn't
> require disclosure of modified preparatory work.
>
> Assuming, as other people have pointed out, copyright holds here.
>
> - Rob.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:04:11 +0000
> From: mp <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Extending CC into physical space
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <49A7E4CB.5050404 at lancaster.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> Slightly tangential, but nevertheless interesting and related:
>
> Jack Kloppenburg, "Seeds, sovereignty, and the V?a Campesina: Plants,
> property, and the promise of open source biology", paper prepared for
> the Workshop on Food Sovereignty: Theory, Praxis and Power, 17-18
> November 2008, St. Andrews College, University of Saskatchewan, draft
> dated 22 November 2008, 34 pp.
> http://www.drs.wisc.edu/kloppenburg/_publications/2008%20Se
> eds%20and%20Sovereignty.pdf
>
> martin
> ==================
> http://colonos.wordpress.com
> ==================
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where it all goes pear shaped is that people will want to make
>>> modifications - to improve it, to produce with different matters, or
>>> different sizes etc.
>>>
>>> The CC attribution, sharealike license extends to the artwork but
>>> doesn't
>>> cover the results. Thus someone could improve the kit and providing
>>> they
>>> don't share the artwork itself take their improvements effectively out
>>> of
>>> the CC space.
>>
>> I suggest using the GNU General Public License rather than BY-SA.
>>
>> Declare the design to be the "source", and the item made from it to be
>> the "binary".
>>
>> So if I take a design, modify it, and make it, anyone I give (or sell)
>> the made version to can request the modified design from me under the
>> terms of the GPL. That wouldn't be true with BY-SA, which doesn't
>> require disclosure of modified preparatory work.
>>
>> Assuming, as other people have pointed out, copyright holds here.
>>
>> - Rob.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:11:20 +0000
> From: Ale Fernandez <skoria at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Extending CC into physical space
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <49A7E678.3090203 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> May be worth checking what other virtual/real crossover projects have
> done, such as open hardware projects like freeduino or openfarmtech. I
> think they've used both CC and GPL, depending on the nature of each
> particular document, schematic or file that makes up the project.
>
> Ale
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where it all goes pear shaped is that people will want to make
>>> modifications - to improve it, to produce with different matters, or
>>> different sizes etc.
>>>
>>> The CC attribution, sharealike license extends to the artwork but
>>> doesn't
>>> cover the results. Thus someone could improve the kit and providing
>>> they
>>> don't share the artwork itself take their improvements effectively out
>>> of
>>> the CC space.
>>
>> I suggest using the GNU General Public License rather than BY-SA.
>>
>> Declare the design to be the "source", and the item made from it to be
>> the "binary".
>>
>> So if I take a design, modify it, and make it, anyone I give (or sell)
>> the made version to can request the modified design from me under the
>> terms of the GPL. That wouldn't be true with BY-SA, which doesn't
>> require disclosure of modified preparatory work.
>>
>> Assuming, as other people have pointed out, copyright holds here.
>>
>> - Rob.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:29:49 +0100 (CET)
> From: peter at waag.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Extending CC into physical space
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<16f8f29d918c47fa266a00de00613db9.squirrel at squirrelmail.waag.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where it all goes pear shaped is that people will want to make
>>> modifications - to improve it, to produce with different matters, or
>>> different sizes etc.
>>>
>>> The CC attribution, sharealike license extends to the artwork but
>>> doesn't
>>> cover the results. Thus someone could improve the kit and providing
>>> they
>>> don't share the artwork itself take their improvements effectively out
>>> of
>>> the CC space.
>>
>> I suggest using the GNU General Public License rather than BY-SA.
>>
>> Declare the design to be the "source", and the item made from it to be
>> the "binary".
>>
>> So if I take a design, modify it, and make it, anyone I give (or sell)
>> the made version to can request the modified design from me under the
>> terms of the GPL. That wouldn't be true with BY-SA, which doesn't
>> require disclosure of modified preparatory work.
>>
>
> That's an interesting point -- in a FabLab (fabrication laboratory), which
> is the context where I'll be working on open design this year, you are
> required to document your designs/processes and make them available (see:
> http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/)
>
> btw.: anybody interested to set up a meeting/barcamp on the issue --
> probably around 13-16 august 2009 near Amsterdam?
>
>> Assuming, as other people have pointed out, copyright holds here.
>>
>> - Rob.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:54:56 -0800
> From: David Delbridge <creativecommons at rigel7.com>
> Subject: [cc-community] How Does Google Index CC-friendly MP3s?
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <49A8A780.2060506 at rigel7.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm publishing MP3s on my website for indexing by CC-friendly search
> engines.  How does this work?  Neither Google nor Yahoo! describes
> clearly what must be done to get an MP3 audio file CC-indexed.  Does
> Google, for example, read the MP3 audio file's ID3 frames?  Or, does
> Google index the URN:SHA1 tag (RDFa) embedded in your MP3 audio file's
> official download page?
>
> I've studied the example RDFa code fragment on
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Nonweb_Tagging but am confused by the
> clarifying statement, "This fragment includes the statement
> <urn:sha1:MSMBC5VE...."  Huh?!  No it doesn't!  Is there a typo here or
> am I misunderstanding something?
>
> Any help is greatly appreciated.  Thank you so much!
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:00:15 -0800
> From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] How Does Google Index CC-friendly MP3s?
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<c03154ae0902272000h74b2b69en1f5cede4fe0cd397 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:54 PM, David Delbridge
> <creativecommons at rigel7.com> wrote:
>> I'm publishing MP3s on my website for indexing by CC-friendly search
>> engines. ?How does this work? ?Neither Google nor Yahoo! describes
>> clearly what must be done to get an MP3 audio file CC-indexed. ?Does
>> Google, for example, read the MP3 audio file's ID3 frames? ?Or, does
>> Google index the URN:SHA1 tag (RDFa) embedded in your MP3 audio file's
>> official download page?
>
> No search engine that I know of does CC aware indexing of audio. I
> suspect the first one that does will look at descriptions of http URLs
> returning audio files rather than URNs with hashes of the files. The
> latter is primarily intended for use by P2P clients to verify that the
> URL they have a reference to is talking about the file with the
> reference ... turned out to not be a big use case.
>
>> I've studied the example RDFa code fragment on
>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Nonweb_Tagging but am confused by the
>> clarifying statement, "This fragment includes the statement
>> <urn:sha1:MSMBC5VE...." ?Huh?! ?No it doesn't! ?Is there a typo here or
>> am I misunderstanding something?
>
> It could be explained much better.  Both have the same statement
> (subject, predicate, object), first as RDFa, second as something
> N-Triples like.  The page needs to be rewritten for clarity.
>
> See http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-ccREL-20080501/ for a
> longer and hopefully clearer exposition.  For a music site, I'd to
> start with recommend simply something like
>
> <div about="http://example.com/foo.mp3">
> <a href="http://example.com/foo.mp3">foo.mp3</a>
> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" rel="license">CC
> BY</a>
> </div>
>
> --
>  http://support.creativecommons.org help us
>  build http://creativecommons.org/asharedculture
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
> End of cc-community Digest, Vol 57, Issue 16
> ********************************************
>


-- 





More information about the cc-community mailing list