Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>]

I'm also getting even more confused because of this particular comic 
strip. When reading the parts of the legal code that regards SA I also 
get the impression that collective works are not subject to the SA terms 
as are derivative works.  How come the comics suggests that they are, or 
is not the "collage" in their example clearly a collective work?

I'm referring to the topmost example on this webpage:
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics4

Hannes


Peter Brink wrote:

> Wrye Modder skrev:
>  
>
> > I'm a bit confused by this... I agree that a by-sa photo used in a book would
> > demand that the book be issued under a by-sa license, but for the opposite
> > reason than cited above -- because the book is a derivative work -- i.e., NOT
> > just a collection.
> >    
>
> No, book containing a photo is _not_ a derivative work based on the photo.
>
>  
>
> > You might note the CC cartoon in which someone wants to use a photo in a
> > collage -- in that case, the collage is considered a derivative work. Or just
> > relying on the text of the license, if the photo is used to illustrate and/or
> > clarify the text, then the text is no longer independent of the photo, and so
> > the combination is not collective.
> >
> >    
>
> The text _is_ independent of the photo. Being inspired by another work 
> is not the same as creating a derivative work...
>
> /Peter Brink