[cc-licenses] (no subject)
James Grimmelmann
james at grimmelmann.net
Wed Dec 6 18:13:08 EST 2006
rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Nic Suzor <nic at suzor.com>: not doing. :-)
>
>> If Lucas took CC-licensed works, otherwise complied with the licence
>> by releasing the movie (or his modifications of the cc-licensed works,
>> if they are separable from the rest of the movie and the entire movie
>> is not required to be released under the licence), and he needed to
>> apply a TPM in order to get it distributed, fine.
>
> This would be if the movie counts as a collective work.
Rob is right here. Exceedingly few movies will be "collective works."
Here's the CC definition:
"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
The only kind of movie I can think of that meets that definition is a
set of several shorter movies.
If the movie resembles the original enough to trigger copyright in the
first place, it's probably a derivative work, not a collective work.
Either Lucas takes so little that it wouldn't matter whether he took
from a CC-SA or non-CC work, or he takes enough that the movie is a
derivative work and the whole thing has to be licensed CC-SA if
distributed to the public.
James
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list