Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "WVH" == Wouter Vanden Hove <wouter.vanden.hove AT pandora.be> writes:

    WVH> No.  for example, you distribute a ND picture + a recipe how
    WVH> to apply some edits or filters in a photo editing program.

    WVH> The recipe is not a derived work of the picture, but the
    WVH> result is.  But with ND you can't distribute the picture, or
    WVH> even put it on your own website.

I'm pretty sure that's entirely untrue.

       http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nd/1.0/

    Me> Or the patch + document would be a derivative work.

    WVH> Yes, sort of.  the resulting document of applying the patch
    WVH> to the document is the derivative work.

Well, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but: "derived
work" has some meaning in beyond the "Modified Version" we see in GNU
licenses. A derived work doesn't have to incorporate the body of the
original work to be "derived".

A common example is "fanfic": more or less fresh content using the
characters, themes, and/or milieu of a previously copyrighted
work. Copyright holders can restrict or prohibit the creation and
distribution of fanfic because they have rights to derived works, too.

AFAICT the NoDerivatives licenses don't specify that you can't modify
the work; they just don't grant any rights to make derivative
works. So, any normal "all rights reserved" right to control derived
works would still be reserved by the copyright holder.

I was just checking to see if this was the case.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide