Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Regarding SA and "strong copyleft" question

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Regarding SA and "strong copyleft" question
  • Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:21:19 -0500

On Thursday 01 March 2007 06:52 am, wolfgang wander wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > [...] we see exactly this situation
> > as asymetrical. And that the license provides little value ot the person
> > using the BY-Sa license in this instance.
>
> This asymmetry is a very good point and the reasoning for it should
> probably be expanded a bit here:

Wolfgang, the asymmetry I was refering to was of a different nature. That is,
I am sharing alike, but the other person isn't.

I am beginning to wonder if SA has much real power at all as written. The
thing is, with code we have some sort of test as to if something is a part of
the same thing or not. Linking in the case of compiled code for one. Is there
an equivalent when it comes to photos, texts, etc?
>
> For a text, copying it verbatim does not invoke the derivative clause but
> text stays text and is then fully available to any user downstream as if
> it had been just republished on a different medium or host.

Does fixing spelling, punctuation, and other minor things make a derivative
or
a cleaned up copy.

Also, what is the ususal and customary unit of work that the copyright is
sought on in the real world? I think I must be asking this worng again and
again as no one is responding. Either that, or I may be seeing possible
importance to the answer to this question where no one else does.
>
> For a photo, without invoking the derivative clause you can: crop,
> shrink, transform its color space, desaturate and raster-print it. A user
> downstream will most likely get a very different representation of
> your original work.

Would a collage make a derivative work or a collection of cropped works?
>
> Furthermore it strikes me as odd that the time syncing of movies and
> sound invokes the derivative clause while the semantic syncing
> of photographs with text (in heavily modified: resized, recropped,
> desaturated) form does not.

I think this is a big stumbling block conceptually. But the underlying
copyright law is out of whack itself, so it should not be surprising that
things don't always make sense to those of us not deep in the art...

Imagine I made a sculpture of the car of the future as I imagined it in my
head. Imagine further that I arranged to exibit it on the street outside of a
museum on a public street in one of the parking spaces. What copyright fun?
>
> Thanks!
> Wolfgang

all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page