Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

Rob Myers skrev:
> For me personally the problem with "adaptation" is that it I'm used  
> to a use of the word that is more limited than "derivative". So  
> "adaptation" would just mean a television or film version of a book.  
> And in fact the dictionary that I am looking at uses this definition.  
> It does not mean a sample of a piece of music used to make another  
> piece of music, for example.

If we take Sweden as an example, we will find that the Swedish 
translation of "derivative" ("härlett") is a term that does not exist in 
the Swedish copyright law. The term "adaptation" ("bearbetning") is the 
term used in the legislation, in the legal literature, in case law etc. 
So the term "adaptation", in an international perspective, tend to point 
people in the right direction - at least as far as their national
legislation goes.

It is correct that a sample is not, generally speaking, an adaptation. 
It's either a copy, or (if the sample cannot be considered an original 
work in itself) it falls outside the scope of copyright law (here I 
refer to European law). So it might be worth considering to add a 
specific note that the license treats sampling of music as if such a 
sample is an adaptation.

/Peter Brink