Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject)

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject)
  • Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:13:08 -0500

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page