Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>]

Evan Prodromou wrote:

> I'm not sure if that's the case, but I think that by-sa music /is/ 
> easy to use in movies. The resulting movie needs to be by-sa licensed, 
> though.

You're right that it's easy to use if you're aware that the movie needs 
to be BY-SA licensed. But what worries me is if more people like me 
assume that movies are considered collective work. Whichever way they 
interpret the SA we might end up with a misunderstanding that will 
either inhibit sharing or lead to an involuntary license breaking.

> I think there are very few exceptional movies that are like that. Most 
> movies I've seen tell a story or give information that hangs together 
> as a cohesive whole. I think it would be hard to justify the idea that 
> sets, music, lighting, direction, acting, props, script aren't all 
> used to form a cohesive single Work.
>
> There /are/ movies like that, of course -- bits and pieces strung 
> together or juxtaposed. I'm thinking of, say, /Atomic Cafe/ or /Four 
> Rooms/. But I think it would be hard to argue that two scenes in a 
> movie are more like two paintings in the same gallery, or two photos 
> in the same magazine, than like two chapters in a book or two 
> movements in a symphony.

> Indeed. Why do you think that music playing in the background of a 
> Website isn't an integral part of that Website?

This is a very interesting discussion; where should we draw the border 
between derivative works and collective works?

I think I partly agree with you on this. In the end, all works that are 
combined in one way or another do come out as a different experience to 
the user, just as you say. The question is really what definitions are 
practical in the CC licenses, or what the purpose of the licenses really 
is. In this sense I've had the picture of a derivative work as an actual 
change of the original content of a work, while I've seen a collective 
work as many different works put together - while keeping their own 
original contents intact - to form a new whole.

I personally believe that a book, a website or a movie can be both a 
collective work or a derivative work, depending on the context. Here are 
some straight examples of my view regarding movies specifically:
If I take a BY-SA licensed movie, which contains both a video- and an 
audio track, and change either the video- or the audio track, I consider 
this a derivative work. If I take two separate works, a piece of music 
and a video track (that contains no audio track), and put them together, 
I consider this a collective work.
If I take two separate works, a music track and a full movie with both 
video and sound effects, and put them together, I end up with a 
derivative work. However, if I make my own movie in which I first play 
the music track to a black background, and then afterwards play the 
other movie with its original video and sound effects, I would say that 
it's a collective work.

In this sense I do consider a website containing text, images and maybe 
audio or video clips a collective work. If any of the original works are 
altered, only this altered work (together with any works that it's 
merged with) will turn into a derivative work, while the collective 
whole will remain a separate entity.

Like you say, most movies are not separate bits of pieces put together, 
but rather the combination of texts and moving-/stationary images to 
create the video track, and sound effects and musical pieces mixed 
together to create the audio track. If that's the case, most parts of 
the video and audio will probably end up as derivative works, but I 
still consider the movie itself a collective work.

Something that just struck me is the natural complications when 
attempting to standardize different medias. For example: Should visual 
changes of a text (changing font, size and color) be considered a 
derivative work? These changes are almost inevitable when putting a text 
in a collective work, and would make most pieces of a text licensed with 
ND practically useless. Still, when I make similar visual adjustments to 
an image this of course must be considered a derivative work.

Maybe the most universal definition of a derivative work actually is 
"changing the _content_ of the work". As changing the looks of a text 
only affects its presentation, this is no deravitave work, while 
changing the looks of an image means actually changing its content.

> Don't you think that licensors have an obligation to find this stuff out?

Another interesting question. Of course, in court there's no question 
that it's everyone's personal responsibility to find out what the 
license actually means, so you're absolutely right in that sense. What 
interests me is how to make clear as much as possible in the license 
summary, because I'm under the impression that not all people who use CC 
licenses read or would fully understand the full legal codes. I merely 
feel it can be morally incorrect to not make major exceptions clear in 
the summary, because it increases the risk of putting people who believe 
they're doing the right thing in troublesome situations or even breaking 
the law against their will. Of course, in the end, that's all up to the 
guys at Creative Commons to decide, based on their purpose with the 
licenses.

Hannes