[cc-licenses] Clarification for Non-Derivative License: grayscale from color not a derivative work
osm at inbox.org
Mon Jan 2 16:37:09 EST 2012
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:30 PM, jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As best as I understand current US law, colourization of an image is a
>> derivative, that can only be done with the explicit permission of the
>> content creator.
> The question is whether or not CC-ND's explicit grant of permission
> "to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise
> the rights in other media and formats" is a grant of such explicit
Err, actually the question is regard to the reverse of colorization,
which on top of being more like to fall under that grant of
permission, is less likely to be considered a derivative work (if a
standard algorithm is used, it seems to me there would be no added
creativity, therefore it would be a copy, not a derivative work).
That said, you need explicit permission to make a copy too.
Preparation of a derivative work always involves copying, at least
under US law.
More information about the cc-licenses