Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Jonathon,

did you come late to this thread? You are making confident claims (that line 
up very closely in many areas to how I looked at things before this thread 
got started. If you did come late, would you go back and read the thread 
leading up to my questions and answer again?

On Thursday 24 November 2005 04:02 am, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> > I give it to person A with a CC BY-SA license.
> > I give it to person B with a standard copyright notice.
> > That is the extent of my distribution of this particular work.
>
> A total of _two_ copies of the material were distributed.
>
> > Before getting to use it, person A loses their only copy.
> >
> > Two brancehs here:
> > In the first, person A then dies. In the second, they live.
> >
> > One: Person A is dead. Person B learns of the license I gave person A.
> >Can person B claim to have the BY-SA license?
>
> No.  A party to a licence can not arbitrarily change the terms of the
> licence.  Exception: If the granter of the licence did not have the
> authority to grant the licence, then the licence _might_ be null and
> void.
>
> [By way of analogy.  The (c) of a movie is not renewed.  The (p) of a
> movie is renewed.  Being a hotshot risk taker, you convert the movie
> to video, and proceed to sell them.  Oops.  You get nailed by the (p)
> holder, because you don't have permission to distribute the (p) part
> of the video.]
>
> [The more I read about (c) and (p) cases, the more I think that
> distributing the same work under two or more licences is a very bad
> idea.]
>
> > Two: Person A lives. Can they get a copy from person B?
>
> No.  The licence that person B has prohibits further distribution.
> Exception: Person B relinquishes all rights to the material to Person
> A.   If that happens, then Person A is under the same contractual
> obligations as Person B. [IOW, Person B no longer has  copy of the
> work, and person A is bound by standard copyright.]
>
> > Does the license I gave apply to the copy.
>
> From  strictly legal POV, distributing the same work under two or more
> licences is going to result in a maze of legal issues.  In general,
> moving from "standard copyright, all rights reserved" to a "free"
> licence is going to be easier, than moving from a "free" licence to a
> "standard copyright, all rights reserved" licence.
>
> >If so, is B breaking the law by copying a work they have no right to copy,
>
> Yes.
>
> > while A is not breaking the law as they have a license from me?
>
> Person A would be in violation of the law, if they had a copy of the
> material that you licenced to B.
>
> The thorny issue would be in proving that Person A had a copy of what
> was distributed to person B.

Since I am currently only putting this example to try and figure out how this 
whole "work" thing works, I don't actually have to worry about that last 
part.
>
> Note:  I am not a lawyer.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
all the best,

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