Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Wrye Modder <wrye_modder AT yahoo.com>]

(Sorry, resending to fix line breaks.)

Actually, even the summary is fairly clear: "If you alter, transform, or
build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a
license identical to this one." Moreover the cartoon overview on the CC site
cites a collage as an example of a derivative work. So, I think that this is
not so much a case of lack of clarity in the text as it is of people reading
what they want or expect to read. 
 
OTOH, people tend to do that. The CC site could definitely be improved in
this regard. Put an FAQ link on the main page, maybe even in the license
summaries. Make the FAQ link prominent on the main page, make subject FAQs
prominent on media specific pages (Images, Video, Music). Better yet, have
the FAQ cover pretty extensively with examples what is and is not a
derviative work.
 
Actually, I think that this ties into a larger issue and trend...
 
It seems to me that CC licenses were mostly predicated around the notion of
a single creative work, in which derivative works are little more than
recasts of the original. E.g., a translation of a book, a play version of a
story, etc. 
 
But the rapid sharing of information really opens up the modularization of
creative work, which I think is/will have much the same effect on creative
works in general that it's had in programming. I.e., there will be a fairly
major explosion in multi-component creative and informational works. We're
seeing that with wikis, and also with game mods (my focus), but also with
movies, web sites, etc. 
 
One of the specific issues of this modularization is the need to separate
components used in a work from the work itself. That's a problem here, and
it's the same problem that I stumbled over in game mods. Hopefully, future
versions of CC will better address this. 
 
..Wrye 

Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org> wrote:
> I think many people are drawn to the CC licenses because they aren't 
> forced to read the full legal code to get an understanding of how the 
> license works. My notion is that people who have not read the legal code 
> in detail and who know nothing of sync licenses and the like assume that 
> movies are handled as other collective works. That's why I see a problem 
> in that movies are an exception, and that it's not made clear in the 
> summary.
> 
> Another concern of mine is how the SA can be interpreted. Like you say, 
> I'm quite sure many believe that SA also refers to any compilations that 
> the work is used in. I do agree with you that there _should_ be a way to 
> force all collective works to be SA as well, and I also think that the 
> SA of today that refers to derivative works should be made more clear in 
> the license summary.
> 
> Hannes

Wrye Morrowind: http://home.earthlink.net/~wrye_modder/morrowind.html