[cc-licenses] multiple licenses of same image
Peter Brink
peter.brink at brinkdata.se
Mon Jan 15 15:51:44 EST 2007
Mia Garlick skrev:
>
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Peter Brink wrote:
>>
>> In my book the low and high resolution images are the same work. The
>> license is obviously worded so that all versions of a work (but not
>> derivative works created by the licensor) are covered by the license.
>> All versions or editions of a work are thus covered by the grant in
>> section 3 (license grant). So - yes - if you offered a low resolution
>> image under BY-SA, the high resolution image (being the same work) would
>> also be available under the same terms.
>
> this is not the way CC licenses work and contravenes the language of the
> license and its intent. this has already been explained on this list.
> eg., just because larry releases a PDF version of his book under a CC
> license, does not give you the right to walk into any bookstore and
> demand a free copy of the hardcopy or exercise rights possible in
> respect of the PDF with regard to the hardcopy.
>
I agree that a careful reader would notice that since the license is
non-exclusive the scope of license would seem to be limited that version
of a work which is explicitly made available under the license - because
otherwise the license would not be non-exclusive. The fact that the
licensee reasonably became aware of the license by reading the license
it self and that the license must have been included with that specific
copy (or instance) of the work being offered for use would seem to imply
that the licensor only had that specific copy or version of the work in
mind when he issued the license. But now I’m making deductions based on
what seems to make sense – if I want to safeguard the interests of the
licensor.
Unfortunately, on the other hand such a reading is contradicted by the
definition of "work" = "the copyrightable work of authorship offered
under the terms of this License". The concept "work" reasonably covers
all versions, editions; re-castings etc. who does not in them self
constitute a derivative work. The source of the confusion is thus the
use of the concept “work”. The deed is no less clear – rather on the
contrary.
I perfectly understand that using another word than “work” doesn’t make
much sense. Perhaps one could rewrite section 3? For example: "’Work’
means the particular instance of a copyrightable work of authorship
which is offered under the terms of this License.”
/Peter Brink
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list