Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 08:34 am, Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:
> >1.  Different resolution/ sound quality means different work?
>
> No. This is not correct. Copyright law does not make any mention of file
> formats or resolution. Neither does the CC licenses.

You are thinking (C) and not (P) I think. So, you might have rights to the 
(C) 
all the way around but not necessarily fot the (P).

I would like to see this discussed with respect to the CC licenses.

The fact also remain, that I I give a a file with license A and b a file with 
the standard copyright terms, b cannot act like they have the same license as 
does a unless they somehow go through a chain to get it. They cannot just 
become aware of the license I have given a and assume they now have the same 
rights.

If I am wrong in this, please explain how.
>
> "Under the 1976 Copyright Act an author is protected as soon as the work is
> recorded in some concrete way, since the Act protects all expressions upon
> fixation in a tangible medium."
>
> So what is protected by copyright law and licensed under CC is not the
> tangible medium but the expression. The expression is the work. The only
> role the tangible medium plays in copyright law is it's existance marks the
> beginning of ones legal protection for the creative expression.
>
> (e.g. If you write a new song and sing it live without ever having recorded
> it in any tangible form, you don't have legal protection for that song. If
> you record it at the live performance or write down the chords and lyrics
> at home on a piece of paper prior to the show, you will have legal
> protection for that song)
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of wiki_tomos
>       Sent: Mon 11/21/2005 8:38 PM
>       To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>       Cc:
>       Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
>
>       >Daniel Carrera wrote:
>       >>drew Roberts wrote:
>       >>
>       >> You could even give a text file to party A with a CC BY-SA license 
> and
>       >> to party B with an all rights reserved license. Party B might know
>       >> about party A's license, but unless they can get a copy from A or
>       >> someone else A has distributed to, they would not to my mind be 
> able to
>       >> pretend they have the BY-SA licensed version. (Anyone see where I 
> can
>       >> be wrong in this thought?)
>       >
>       >This depends on whether the license is attached to the *file* or the
>       >"work". And this is ultimatley the question I'm trying to ask.
>
>       Hi. I am inclined to agree with drew. Instead of repeating what he has
>       written, here are my formulations of the key questions and my answers.
>
>       In writing this, I realize that my opinions are largely based on my
>       understanding of "how lawyers and other experts think about these 
> things."
>       Quite vague ground, indeed.
>
>       1.  Different resolution/ sound quality means different work?
>
>       In case of wav vs. mp3 licensing, if someone reproduce a wav file, or
>       create a derivative work that cannot be created without high quality
>       audio source in wav format, then that would is likely to be a 
> copyright
>       violation.
>
>       What is licensed is certain rights in all the creative expression
>       fixed in the mp3 file, but some more subtle creative expressions are 
> fixed
>       in wav file only. The latter is not licensed.
>
>       In some cases, it would be difficult to tell if one particular 
> derivative
>       work is created from .wav without permission or created within the 
> freedom
>       granted by the CC license for the mp3 version. But that pragmatic
>       difficulty I guess is not the focus of the question.
>
>
>       2. Work / File distinction
>
>       Some files of digital creative works are often times equally 
> authentic and
>       just the same. So if one file is under a CreativeCommons license, how 
> come
>       other, exact same file could be unlicensed?
>
>       I think it is somewhat like different copies of the same book (same
> edition, from the same publisher) that are priced differently in different
> locations.
>
>       Using drew's example each copy of the same text is, in CC's license 
> term,
>       different "Work," I suppose. In a more ordinary sense of the word, 
> each
>       copy of the same text is the same work, just different copies.
>
>       Again, I am not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on all these.
>
>       Tomos
>       _______________________________________________
>       cc-licenses mailing list
>       cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>       http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

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