Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

drew Roberts wrote:

>On Wednesday 23 November 2005 08:11 am, wiki_tomos wrote:
>> drew Roberts wrote:

>> First, it is almost always possible to distinguish a use based on
>> a CC license from uses that are not. Look for license notice and other
>> signs that is unique to CC license restrictions. If those requirements
>> are met, it is a strong sign that it is based on a CC license. In drew's
>> hypothetical case, it is pretty easy to tell if person B copied from
>> his own work without permission, or followed the CC license.
>
>I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.

I am sorry about this, but it is written badly. I meant "his own copy" 
when I wrote "his own work." Let me try again with a bit of context.

The issue is if a work, once licensed under CC to a person (A), 
can be used by another person (B), who received no license from the author 
of the work. (Lets' say the work is a novel, and it is written soley by 
person X.) I suggested that would be possible with certain reading of 
the license. (It seems Daniel and Peter both think that that reading of 
the license text is inappropriate. And I agree it might be.)  More 
specifically, 
I suggested that the CC licenses are directed toward any member of public 
as licensee, not specifically limited to those who received the work 
with the license. 

Another closely-related question is this: if person X handed his novel with 
the CC license only to person A, and the license is applicable to others, 
any member of the public, including person B, then how in general the 
author or others can tell if person B infringed upon the X's copyright? 
Can we distinguish a license-compliant copy of X's novel from an illegal copy 
of 
X's novel? 

One way to do that is to look for license notice of the copy. If the 
copy is created following a CC license, it should bear a license notice. 
There are other license restrictions that CC-compliant users would follow, 
but not the illegal pirates, such as preserving reference to disclaimer 
warranties. 

Relevant part of the license is 4.a. 
"You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the 
disclaimer of warranties." 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode )

If person B does not have an access to the CC-licensed copy, he might have a 
hard time guessing where and how license notices are placed in the novel. 
(Or he might not, if the person X have published many novels with the 
same CC license, with consistent style of license notices, same set of 
warranty disclaimers, etc.) 

I hope this explanation is not confusing this time. 



Now, back to the broader issue, another reason that Peter and Daniel might be 
right 
in suggesting that license is tied to copies, not the work, is 8.a. of the 
license. 

8.a. 
"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a 
Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the 
Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under 
this License."

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode )

I can come up with a few different reasons why this provision is 
in the license, but one is to clarify how a person becomes a licensee. 



Best, 


Tomos