Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 25 November 2005 04:30 am, wiki_tomos wrote:
> 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.

Even if the license is attached to the copy, this reasoning is persuasive and 
probably is how things work. I don't see why y John would lose his license 
just because he lost his copy.

The question would hten be, how could he get a copy that did not have the 
license and properly treat it as being under the license if he hould not 
obtain the license details in order to comply. (Think URI part.)

Hence, the question I asked earlier in the list. If John getting a copy from 
someone that has an standard copyright version is legal for him to do, can 
the person John gets it from still be guilty of infringement since they have 
no such right. I guess, they could give John their original, John could make 
use of the license, make a copy for themself and one for them, give them back 
their original with a standard license, a copy with the CC license and keep 
his cc licensed copy for himself. (longwinded!)
>
> >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
all the best,

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