[cc-community] Question about specific attribution requirement for cc-by-sa V3
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu May 5 12:18:51 EDT 2011
On Thursday 05 May 2011 09:35:49 Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:14 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > 8.e. "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
> > with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings,
> > agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified
> > here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may
> > appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified
> > without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You."
> > from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> > perhaps v 4.0 should add teeth to this, something like:
> > "You may not use this license to license your works if you try to add
> > further restrictions on the person getting the license from you."
> > Thoughts?
> Well, the simple description says: "You must attribute the work in
> the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way
> that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). "
> > Would this be a further restriction or a clarification?
> I can't find any part of the license which allows for this
> restriction. HOWEVER, if the CC-BY-SA work is original, then the
> author's clearly expressed terms should be respected regardless of
> whether or not the restrictions are compatible with CC-BY-SA.
I don't necessarily agree with this as it breaks the compatibility of BY-SA.
Now imagine a collage of 20 photos from 20 different photographers each with
the same requirement. 40? 100? 1000?
To me, if you want the goodwill of using a BY-SA license then you should be
cool with that.
Otherwise, take the cc name off of the license, mod the license itself to your
pleasure and expect people to respect that. You are gumming up the works if
you want special treatment for your work in a BY-SA world.
> author owns the copyright, and is not required to release it under
> CC-BY-SA at all. And in this case I think that is especially true, as
> the plain English terms clearly state that you must attribute the work
> *in the manner specified by the author*,
We have seen this discussed before on the lists and, iirc, the author can't go
crazy here. Can anyone find the thread or remember the heading?
> even though I can't find a
> provision within the license which provides for that. If the terms
> are not compatible with CC-BY-SA, then the author should be asked to
> stop calling the work CC-BY-SA, we shouldn't just invalidate his
> obvious intent. (Whether or not the terms are compatible, I don't
> know. I couldn't find anything in the legalese which allows it, but
> the plain English terms clearly do allow it.)
> If, on the other hand, the CC-BY-SA work is derived from a previous
> CC-BY-SA work, then the author of the previous work should contact the
> new author and work something out.
One of the pains that BY-SA is *supposed* to do away with is the need to
contact the authors of works you want to use. Why in the world do so many
seem to want to give up this huge advantage?
all the best,
all the best,
More information about the cc-community