Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>
  • To: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • Cc: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
  • Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:46:30 +1100

drew Roberts wrote:
>> Another solution would be to change the law, or the doctrine, so music in a
>> movie *doesn't* trigger share-alike, and is considered "mere aggregation".
>> We need less strictures, not more.
>
> Ah, not all of us agree with that. I like the way it works for songs and
> movies. I would like it to work that way for more types of things. Can you
> tell me the problems you see arising from my desires?

I am against extending the concept of derivativeness for the same reason
Strenghtening copyleft by creating more rights (or extending the reach of
those rights) is solving the wrong problem. The more we lower the bar for
"derivativeness" or "related works" or whatever the legal term, the more we
strenghten copyright, and with it the grasp of the copyright cartel over
culture.

And by extending the standard of "derivativeness" we would be making it more
difficult to distribute our copyleft works alongside non-copyleft ones. The
way it works now with photos, there are more nuances in the ways of
distributing creative works, and the public is better served by more options
of receiving those works. The way you and Erik want it to work, readers
would not have less exposure to by-sa photos and their authors, as
commercial non-free newspapers would not be able to print them. Commercial
non-free newspapers would also have less freedom to print and use those
photos according to the wishes of their authors.

My "music in a movie doesn't trigger share-alike" was a forced answer, a bit
of ha-ha-only-serious, but I do mean it: if no voices or foley or any other
kind of audio editing are performed on the music, I tink mere synching
should not trigger copyleft, as the music could be retrieved from the
soundtrack and re-published according to the terms of the original by-sa
license.

As to treating different types of thing alike, computer programs and
literary texts are not treated alike in copyright law, nor are theatrical
works and sculptures, why should photographs and music be treated alike?
Consistence is an overrated virtue.

Regards,

-- javier candeira




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page