Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

Daniel Carrera wrote:

>Just now Tomos said something that got me thinking:
>
> > 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.
>
>That's not quite what I had in mind when I said that if I gave John a 
>copy under CC, Janet didn't automatically get it. So I started trying to 
>figure out the difference between what I had in mind and Tomos' summary. 
>And I hit an interesting scenario that may be instructive for us:

It seems I cannot get your points correctly. I apologize..

>Scenario:
>* I give a copy to John under BY-NC.
>* I give a copy to Jane under another license XYZ.
>* John loses his copy.
>* Jane gives John a copy.
>
>Question: What rights does John have over the new copy from Jane?
>
>* If the CC license is attached to the WORK, the answer is BY-NC.
>* If the CC license is attached to the COPY, the answer is "whatever 
>rights Janet gave him".

Interesting question, indeed.. If we take a strict position that the 
license is attached to the physical copy, then John does not have 
the BY-NC license after losing his copy. And that seems to be a simple 
reasoning. 

According to this position, the term "Work" in CCPL actually mean something 
like "this physical copy of a copyrighted work." So it is kind of natural 
to think that when the copy is lost, the license is lost as well.

When John receives a copy from Janet, then John's right to use the work 
depends 
on what kind of license is attached to that copy. 


But I can think of reasons to take the other position, the one which claims 
that the John still is a licensee. 

First, to become a licensee does not take the "possession" (ownership) 
of a copy or obtaining a copy at hand. Mere exposure to the work and the 
license would suffice, I think. 

8.a and 8.b of the BY-NC license reads as follows:

"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.
b. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, 
Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same 
terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License."
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode )

>From these, it is not a skewed interpretation to think that when someone is 
simply presented a CC'd work in a performance, that would make him qualified 
to be a licensee. It is not necessary for him to physically obtain a copy or 
take an ownership of a copy. 

Second, license grant is perpetual, so the loss of John's copy does not 
take away the grants he has once received. The termination happens only when 
John violates the terms of the license. 

Between the two I came up with, I am inclined to take the latter. 

>Suppose that the license is attached to the WORK. What if Janet's 
>license is BY-SA? Would this mean that John now has a choice between 
>BY-NC and BY-SA?

I think that kind of "being dual-licensed" could happen, if we assume 
that the license grant is tied to copies. (Isn't that what you mean?)

Best Regards, 

Tomos