Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

Let me just say that I think you are making one of the mistakes that I make 
when it comes to copyright in that you seem to be trying to apply reason and 
logic to the situation. I don't think things work like that, at least not for 
those of us unschooled in the field.

Now, I thin I have found a better question for you. Does the use of photos or 
illustrations which have a by-sa license require that a book they are used in 
be released with the same license. If not, why are movies treated specially?

On Friday 21 October 2005 07:45 pm, Hannes wrote:
> 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.

OK, so it would be ok from your point of view if the deed pointed out the 
sync 
issue.
>
> > 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 think as someone else mentioned, this idea of allowing mixing of by-sa 
works 
came from the gpl allowing a distro to include gpl and non-gpl programs on a 
cd. Now, in gpl land, these programs with different licenses are seperate and 
not linked in any way. You tend to experience each program seperately as you 
use it. (Kind of - at least the ones you actually run.) If you mix by-sa and 
other licensed songs on a cd to make an album, you are more likely to 
experience the album as an album. If you combine music and video, you are 
even more likely to experiance the combination as an integral work. But 
again, this is an attempt at reason. Things are what they are.
>
> 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.

A translation is considered a derivative work iirc. So, would converting to 
another format be considered a derivative work? (Where another format could 
be as simple as changing the sample rate of an audio file or changing from a 
wav to an ogg?)

> 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

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22