[cc-licenses] Clarification for Non-Derivative License: grayscale from color not a derivative work

Luis Villa luis at tieguy.org
Thu Jan 5 15:33:59 EST 2012

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sarah Pearson
<sarah at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> The way the licenses currently work, the question of what constitutes a
> derivative/adaptation is determined by reference to local law. This is the
> case for purposes of BY-SA and BY-ND. Currently, the only exception is for
> synching, which is explicitly deemed an adaptation for purposes of the
> license.
> In other words, the determination of whether colorization (or the reverse)
> is allowed for a BY-ND work has to be answered by reference to applicable
> law. Different jurisdictions have different standards for copyrightability,
> so the answer likely varies depending on where the work is being used.
> Of course, we can always discuss the merits of carving out a new exception
> as we have done for synching. Just wanted to add that clarification.

Hi, Sarah-
Is there a writeup somewhere of why synching got a particular
carveout? That might help inform this (or any related) discussion.


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list