Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 08:34 pm, wiki_tomos wrote:
> Wow. What an amount of discussion within a matter of hours..
>
> WAV and mp3 are different works when wav file contains extra
> amount of creative expression fixed. Evan somehow seems to take the
> assumption that WAV and mp3 just sounds the same. I don't. And
> possibly that is the only difference between Evan and I.
>
> I assume Evan will agree with me that if the WAV version presents
> more details that are minimally creative (as to be copyrightable)
> are missing from mp3 version, then the CC license covering the
> mp3 file does not grant any permission about those details.
>
> drew seems to suggest that different file formats are different
> "expressions." I think the file formats do not always equate with
> different expressions.
>
> This email of mine is the same work even if it is printed
> with black ink, on a screen, or typewrited. The creativity
> of the text usually does not depend at all on the medium
> it is printed/ fixed. Likewise, a sound recording does not
> automatically become a different work simply because you
> record it on a tape or CD, or in mp3 or WAV. If they sounds
> the same, they are the same work.
>
> Assuming that some more creative expression exists in higher
> resolution photos than low-res ones, I still think they are
> different works. Just getting a license for low-res photo does not
> grant you at all to freely use creative expression fixed only
> in the high-res version. (Come to think of it, I am not sure
> if Evan agree with this..)
>
> Daniel seems to think that PDF (non-editable) and OpenOffice
> (editable) versions of a text are different works. I disagree
> for the same reason. Unless there is some specific reason to believe
> that the editability is "creative" part of the work, they are
> just the same texts. (In addition, I think things like usefulness,
> and convenience do not in most cases count as part of creativity).
> So if I get a permission to modify, copy, and perform the text,
> then I have the same set of permission with both the PDF and
> OpenOffice version.

But the PDF may contain embedded fonts which the person giving you the pdf 
does not have the right to give you a BY-SA license over.

Would anyone care to discuss this issue? Am I being a total dolt here? 
(Certainly possible.)

Another example of this is someone who released a song and if I recall 
correctly, the individual tracks to the song under a CC license and then went 
on to eplain that because of the software and / or sound libraries used in 
making the song, the one thing you couldn't do is sample the individual 
instruments and distribute copies in a sample library.

My question to them was, again in keeping with the "only agreement" clause, 
could they legally release the songs under  the cc license they chose.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
> Back to the Magnatune's case, if their WAV files contain
> extra creative details that are missing from the mp3 versions,
> then you cannot freely distribute the WAV files.
>
> Now, I have not looked into copyright laws other than US and Japan.
> And I try to think in terms of US copyright law here. But of course,
> I am not a lawyer, so I could well be wrong on all these points.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tomos
all the best,

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