Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 28 August 2006 03:10 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux skrev:
>  > What I'm wondering is, if an image or video is made copylefted by
>  > licensing it under the Creative Commons BY-SA license, then.... if a
>  > webpage were to embed (and NOT just simply link to) such an image or
>  > video, then would it become copylefted too?... and, in other words,
>  > would the webpage become licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA
>  > license too?
>
> No. A webpage with embedded images (or any other file) is a "collective
> work". It's a collection several, independent, works. The CC license
> does not require that all the components of a collective work are
> licensed under the same license (or under any license at all). See
> sections 1.a and 4.a.
>
>  > If the answer is "no", then will the CC 3.0 contain anything like
>  > that? I.e., where embedding a BY-SA image or video into a webpage, via
>  > the HTML <img>, <embed>, or <object> elements, would make that webpage
>  > a "derivative work" and make it become BY-SA too?
>
> AFAIK, the answer is no - and why should it? An embedded image is no
> derivative work, why should we allow for such an extension of the
> licensor's rights?

I am not advocating one way or another on this in this post, but to put some 
thoughts as to why people may think this, it may be related to how we make 
including a BY-SA song in a movie cause the movie to be a derivative work of 
the song when in fact it isn't? Thoughts? That is what the sync language does 
isn't it? (I am going from memory here.)
>
> /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