[cc-community] Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Apr 13 12:15:50 EDT 2007

My take on how a modified BY-SA could work follows...

On Friday 13 April 2007 10:02 am, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako at atdot.cc>:
> > CC seems to have a taken a position that the license basically stops at
> > the edge of a photograph. Basically, this means that if you don't modify
> > the content of a photograph, you can basically do what you want with it
> > under an an SA license (of course, Evan's comments, and a few things he
> > didn't say, still need to be kept in mind).
> CC have limited SA's copyleft to derivative works. This is a
> reasonable position but doesn't always meets people's expectations or
> model the existing "social contract" for use of different kinds of work.

It is reasonable, but it is not the only reasonable way to do SA.
> > This is one reason a number of photographs who upload to Wikimedia
> > Commons prefer the GFDL
> The GFDL seems to define both texts and images as "documents" and
> replace the concept of derivation with the concepts of modification
> and combination. The reason that photographs would work as expected
> under the GFDL would be because it defines a modified version as:
> "... any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either
> copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another
> language."
> But this crucially assumes that an article illustrated by a photo
> constitutes a "work". From the discussion of using photography for
> illustration I'm not sure that it does. If it doesn't, it might be the
> case that you can just use the photograph under the GFDL's unmodified
> copying permission, which is how you can use a photo as an
> illustration under BY_SA.
> > and its related to the reason why Larry Lessig
> > has analogizing NC clauses and copyleft for software -- although I
> > personally disagree with Lessig's argument in this respect.
> Yes. I'm very glad that Lessig is talking about this and urging a
> broader discussion though.


here goes (rough thoughts so far)

A modified BY-SA could work along these lines...

If you make a derivative of the work, you must put BY-SA on the derivative.

If you use the work in another work where a copyright arises, the work getting 
the copyright must be BY-SA and any works also used in the larger work must 
be compatible with BY-SA for use in collections and the like.

This would not attempt to force a BY-SA license on works used alongside a 
BY-SA work in a collection, but it would require the collection as a whole to 
be BY-SA and it would limit the licenses on works used in the collection to 
ones which carry a "compatible for collections" license.

As a first cut on "compatible for collections" licneses, they would need to be 

Perhaps the over all work would only need to carry such a license and not 
BY-SA itself. I don't know how copyrights work on collections. If so, then 
since the works used alongside the BY-SA work and the overall work are not 
derivatives (or would not necessarily be?) actual derivatives of the BY-SA 
work, they could be licensed in other ways when not in the presence of hte 
BY-SA work.

In cases where no copyright would arise from putting the BY-SA work together 
with other works, none of this would apply.

First, have I been clear in the above?

Second, have I failed to cover some inportant point(s)?

Third, benefits of such an approach over the current BY-SA?

Fourth, costs of such an approach over the current BY-SA?

Fifth, overall, would you prefer such an approach to the current BY-SA 
> - Rob.

all the best,

(da idea man)

More information about the cc-community mailing list