[cc-licenses] Clarification for Non-Derivative License: grayscale from color not a derivative work
sarah at creativecommons.org
Fri Jan 6 17:18:21 EST 2012
Thanks to all for your comments.
@Luis -- I've done some digging for information about why CC chose to
specify synching in the definition of Adaptation, and unfortunately I
haven't found anything other than Glenn's blog
2.0, which has a really short description. I'm fairly
new to CC, so perhaps someone with more history with the organization will
weigh in with more info. In the meantime, I'll continue to dig around to
see if I can find anything.
@Anthony -- Good point about the mutually exclusive collective work vs.
adaptation definitions. There are likely other exceptions to the applicable
law rule as well. We're going to put together a list of all of those places
throughout all six licenses in the suite, and we'll post it to the 4.0 wiki
once it's done. It should be a helpful resource for 4.0 drafting.
@Gregor -- Interesting argument about getting away from applicable local
law. I will think more about it and give some thoughts early next week.
Sarah Hinchliff Pearson
Creative Commons, Senior Counsel
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 5 January 2012 21:11, Sarah Pearson <sarah at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> The way the licenses currently work, the question of what constitutes a
>> derivative/adaptation is determined by reference to local law. This is the
>> case for purposes of BY-SA and BY-ND. Currently, the only exception is for
>> synching, which is explicitly deemed an adaptation for purposes of the
>> In other words, the determination of whether colorization (or the
>> reverse) is allowed for a BY-ND work has to be answered by reference to
>> applicable law. Different jurisdictions have different standards for
>> copyrightability, so the answer likely varies depending on where the work
>> is being used.
> Which is something probably more general to be addressed for CC 4.0: This
> seems to be a completely unworkable assumption of CC.
> What is the local law for a publication that involves people from dozens
> of countries? On Wikipedia you need to fullfill at least the laws of the
> server storage facility, of each country of residence of each editor
> involved, and of the primary audience - please correct me if I am wrong. Of
> course, anonymity makes it hard to pursue violations, but it becomes more
> and more common to sue people based on court orders to reveal the identify
> behind IP addresses or user names.
> If I, as a German citizen, upload Belgian photographs of the Atomium (no
> freedom of panorama and image by necessity made under Belgium legislation),
> from a Internet provider in the UK to a U.S. server, addressing audiences
> in all German-speaking countries - what is the local law?
> Wikipedia tries to stretch as much as possible:
> illustrates with a toy-version of the Atomium taken in a public park in
> Austria (which, however, is probably a copyright violation in itself...)
> shows the Atomium itself, and gives a fair use rationale for the US, but
> it is unclear how the uploaded material could ever reach the US without a
> copyright violation, given that it is impossible to take the photograph
> Summary: I believe Creative Commons needs to overcome as far as possible
> the assumption that there is anything like applicable local law.
> List info and archives at
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses