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: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
  • Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:49:52 +0000

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:

What I think people are saying they want, and I am not against it
in principle is for BY-SA or a variation of BY-SA to forbid making or
distributing copies where the work is linked with meaning to non BY-SA works
or at least non-copyleft or perhaps even non-Free works. So you could not use
their BY-SA photos of animals in your ARR book about animals. Or their BY-SA
photo of a natural disaster in your ARR news account of that disaster? They
see, and I think rightly I might add, that despite how copyright law treats
the situation, that the book links the text and the photos in some tight
manner. It would perhaps be different if they had a book about animals and
the photos were all of cars, but even there I am not sure. Perhaps it is more
to do with what is marketed and sold?

It is to do with use of the image as an illustration. Image libraries have no
problem making and enforcing this distinction.

So BY-SA currently reads:

1b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as
encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or
other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below,
which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute
intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in
unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting
separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into
a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered
an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

Ideally it would be modified to read:

1b. [...]which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents,
constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its
entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions WITHOUT
BEING USED TO ILLUSTRATE OR ACCOMPANY THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, each constituting
separate and independent works in themselves, [...]

But since this tries to redefine a legal term, we would instead add:

1x. "Illustration or Accompanyment". Licensed works used to illustrate or
accompany another work do not make the illustrated or accompanied work an
adaptation but can only be used to illustrate or accompany works also covered
by this license. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work,
performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation
with a moving image ("synching") will cause this clause to be in effect.

Notice that I am not redefining the word "adaptation", and that this is not
viral.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page