Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Luis Villa" <luis AT tieguy.org>]

On 8/14/06, Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se> wrote:
> 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.

Part of the GPL's reasoning in getting rid of derivative was actually
to get rid of all the legal baggage around derivative, and use
something that they could define themselves. If 'adaptation' is a term
of art in European countries, perhaps it is best to avoid that as
well.

Luis

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses