Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>]

I see what you mean. After taking yet another look at the comics, I 
realize that I misunderstood the use of the word "collage" in this 
example. I thought it was used to refer to simply a collection of photos 
rather than taking bits and pieces of various images and putting them 
together to form a new image. But by looking at the pictures in the 
examples I see that they mean the latter. In that case I definitely 
agree that it becomes a derivative work.

But what happens if she makes more than one such collage of photos, or 
adds some text to the final image? Can she not claim that she first made 
the collage image as a separate entity, which she licenses as demanded 
by SA, and that she uses this derivative work in a collective work, by 
placing it next to some text or other photos? Will this enable her to 
actually release the final work under whatever license she chooses to 
(as a collective work), as long as she makes clear that the collage 
image itself is a derivative work licensed under SA etc?

To continue the movie discussion: Is not a text that is placed next to 
an image (or the other way around) able to influence the expression to a 
similar degree as an audio track added to some moving image? Then why is 
the first considered a collective work and the latter a derivative work?

Hannes