[cc-community] non-revocable cc license for collection to be donated to an archive?

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jan 31 17:45:34 EST 2008


On Thursday 31 January 2008 16:18:48 Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 January 2008 10:31, Terry Hancock wrote:
> >>However, on the surface of things, it would seem you should be fine with
> >>the CC-By license, because:
> >
> > Sure, except if they simply don't grant anyone access to the collection
> > in the first place then the BY license will be of no use to anyone.
>
> This is a good point -- museums have used that for decades to monopolize
> photographs and digital images of long out-of-copyright paintings. It
> was only a relatively recent ruling in the US that clarified that the
> digital images are not "new works" but rather "copies of the work" and
> so not copyrightable.
>
> > Again see the comment at the beginning. You will possibly need to
> > contract with them to provide access to the public or whomever you wish
> > to have access.
>
> I agree with this advice.
>
> > The license can handle the rest. Except as Terry notes with any
> > derivatives they make. You could try to contract with them that any
> > derivateves they make themselves or via any non arm's length transaction
> > must be licensed BY as well?
>
> I don't think you can legally do that. The problem is that the CC-By
> license is granted to anyone who receives the work, and that includes
> the Archive. So, anything that the CC-By license allows, you are also
> allowing the Archive to do, and that includes copyrighting derivative
> works.

I know what you are saying it, but aI think you could do it anyway. You just 
contract with the Archive to adhere to these terms before you turn the 
collection over to them and make it known that they will not be getting the 
collection unless they agree to this.

Well, unless the language in the license prevents you from doing this somehow, 
I haven't read the BY license in a bit.
>
> Questions will arise about what is a derivative work, of course.
> There've been a lot of debates on this list (and on cc-licenses, in the
> past), about that. It has to be more than just a small alteration. For
> example, it's pretty much been established that you don't create a
> derivative of a photo merely by cropping it or doing simple
> image-processing on it.
>
> Examples of derivatives might include: a collage, a collection guide
> which organizes images of the collection objects along with text written
> for the guide, a translation of a written work.
>
> I also think that that's the way it should be. You shouldn't attempt to
> restrain the Archive *more* than other users, right? I mean, if a
> non-free derivative created by the Archive to whom you assigned the
> collection is a problem, wouldn't one created by some unknown outside
> agency be a *bigger* problem? After all, this Archive is offering to
> house all this stuff for you -- they should have at least as much
> benefit from it as the public.

Yes and no. I see what you are getting at, but they are getting the collection 
and the rest of the public isn't. Presumably some non-digital bits included 
right. Donated, free of cost.

Which brings up anotehr issue. You might want to contract with them that they 
will allow gratis access to the digital content.

Otherwise, they could put up a "pay" barrier to the content. This 
would "force" another archive to pay for access, possibly to each work in 
turn and then mirror it elsewhere to aviod this situation as relates to the 
public.
>
> If it's a problem for the Archive to create closed derivatives, then it
> must be a problem for anyone to do it, and you need to use CC-By-SA. But
> that will restrict some of the applications to which the work can be
> put, and so if you wish to avoid that, you need CC-By, which was your
> original choice.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew




More information about the cc-community mailing list