[cc-community] More discussion on NC
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Oct 13 10:56:07 EDT 2010
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 10:45:07 jonathon wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 02:15 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> >> It doesn't work for images.
> > Right, but it perhaps could if CC wanted to tweak the license some.
> Tweaking the generic CC license for any specific art form, means that
> protections for other art forms are "lost".
Firstly, it is already tweaked for songs used in film/video - see the sync
bits. Secondly, I am not proposing art form specific tweaks.
What I propose is to consider if the meta work which uses a BY-SA work gets a
copyright in law, if it does, the meta work must have an approved Free
license and all works contained in that meta work must have an approved Free
license. Otherwise permission is needed to *make copies* of the BY-SA work.
(Perhaps distribute copies too?)
In other words control the license to copy rather than / as well as the
license to make derivatives.
Is this or is this not possible?
What are the pros for this if it is possible?
What are the cons for this if it is possible?
> What _might_ work, is a CC-image license, that was specifically crafted
> to cover images. Something similar is also needed for audio and video
all the best,
More information about the cc-community