Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 10:28 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> rob AT robmyers.org skrev:
> > Quoting Jessica Coates <j2.coates AT qut.edu.au>:
> >> - re the 'adaptation' debate - this term definitely has a clear legal
> >> definition in Australia, which probably wouldn't include all the uses
> >> intended to be covered by the CC licences. I'd say there's a real risk
> >> that using this word would import a whole lot of legal baggage into the
> >> interpretation in many countries - I don't think we could use it in our
> >> jurisdiction licence. That being said, it might be difficult to come up
> >> with a clear, simple term that doesn't have the same effect somewhere.
> >
> > Rather than refer to "derivatives" or "adaptations", the GPL 3 draft uses
> > the following generic definitions:
> >
> > ``A "modified" work includes, without limitation, versions in which
> > material has
> > been translated or added. A work "based on" another work means any
> > modified version, formation of which requires permission under applicable
> > copyright law.''
> >
> > http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html
>
> Unfortunately (in Europe at least) this definition extends the rights of
> the copyright holder at the expense of the licensee. One side effect
> being that unknowledgeable licensees could be fooled to think that they
> need to use the license when they really don't.
>
> Here's why:
> a) adding the new content B to A creating the work C is under European
> copyright law the same as creating a collective work. All additions to a
> work are (as long as the addition is an independent work - which in most
> cases is true) are the property of the author to the addition and thus
> not dependent on any other copyright. A preface (common in e.g.
> scientific literature) is thus under European copyright law an
> independent work, for which the author of the preface is the copyright
> holder.
>
> b) You _do not_ need any permission to create a derivative work in
> Europe. You do need permission to publish such works.
>
> So while you'll need at permission to _publish_ a collective work or an
> adaptation, the copyright holder to the original work does not gain any
> rights to the collective work or the adaptation.

And does the BY-SA license grant permission to publish on the condition that 
the collective work or adaptation is only published under a BY-SA license? If 
so, I am not sure it makes any real difference.
>
> To my mind, it is important not deceive the users of the license about
> the scope of their rights. It is better, IMHO, to explicitly list uses
> that would have been fully under the control of the copyright holder,
> but who is treaded by the license as if they were adaptations (and thus
> enabling the user to sublicense). For example, state in the license that
> all sampling is - as far as the license goes - treated as if they were
> adaptations etc.
>
> There is one problem that cannot be solved though, the license will
> never be able to give licensees who are not creators of "real"
> adaptations any moral rights. That power is held by the law maker alone.

Ah, ok, since I don't think we get moral rights here, it does not make as big 
a difference to me I guess.
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145