Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 01:58 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> There seems to be some serious confusion about the meaning of the
> concepts of a “work” and of a “derivative work”.
>
> A “work” is any kind of expression of a thought, idea or concept which
> has been created by a human being; in some countries (like the U.S.) it
> needs to be fixed in a tangible medium, but in most countries it does not.
>
> It’s in fact easier to say what a work is not, than to exactly define
> what it is:
>
> * The work is not the physical form of the expression.
> * The work is not the ideas, thoughts, facts or concepts expressed.
> * The work is not the style, manner or method of expression.
>
> A book, a pdf-file, a text-file or an openoffice-file containing the
> same expression are all _copies_ of the same work.

This would be nice if really so, (and I am not saying it is not so) but then 
I 
am confused as to how, say someone who publishes a fake book containing 
public domain songs can claim much of a copyright in anything. Especially 
sine they imply that the whole shebang is copyrighted. Can someone who knows 
comment on this?

Also, sine we are talking recorded songs, there are (C) copyrights on the 
words and music and a (P) copyright on the sound recording. We never seem to 
talk about the (P)

>
> A “derivative work” is a transformation of a work, such as a
> translation, adaptation, arrangement of music or any other possible
> alteration of a literary or artistic work.
>
> Daniel Carrera asks a few questions about the scope of a cc-license.
> When a licensor licenses a work under a cc-license does that mean that
> he licenses the work as cast into a particular physical form or does he
> offer a license for all the possible physical forms the work that he has
> and/or will create?
>
> This is an interesting question. IMO the license only applies to the
> particular physical form of a work that has a cc-license attached to it.
> My reason for this line of reasoning is that the license is
> non-exclusive, meaning that the copyright holder retains the full
> copyright of the work; he can create more copies of the work and create
> derivative works based on the work. He can offer these under any terms
> he wish. If he wishes to license an MP3 version of a piece of music of
> his under a cc-license _and_ sell a WAV version, he is free to do so.
> The WAV file would then _not_ be available under the cc-license.
>
> It would not be fair to demand that the copyright holder would _have_ to
> make all versions of a work available under the same license just
> because he has chosen to license a particular physical form of that work
> under a cc-license. In our example above the downstream user is free to
> convert (i.e. copy) the MP3 file into another format if he should wish
> to, so there is no need to treat all original versions of a work as
> licensed under the same license.
>
>
> /Peter Brink
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

all the best,

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