Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] different license for different bitrate

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] different license for different bitrate
  • Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:31:13 +0900

Hi. I guess the photos in your examples are not the same work
in the strict legal sense. That's because the higher resolution
photo contains more details, some of which are your creative
expression of some idea. It is sort of like a synopsis of a novel
is not the same work as the novel itself.

A licensor cannot take BY-NC-ND'd higher-res photo
and use it under the terms of BY-SA for that reason.

But of course, being a non-expert, I would be interested in
what Mia thinks.

Best,

Tomos



----- Original Message -----
From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:54:33 -0500
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] different license for different bitrate


>On Thursday 14 December 2006 08:39 am, Mia Garlick wrote:
>> heya, first up - i don't read the original posting as asking that. i
>> read the original posting as asking whether you can have one version
>> of the work under a CC license and a version of the work in a
>> different format under an ARR copyright.
>>
>> secondly, in your hypo, i think the answer is no. just because
>> someone has offered something under one set of license terms (license
>> A, let's say) and then another (license B), doesn't give licensee A
>> the authority to switch to license B. however, as a practical matter
>> this question may be moot because if licensee B became aware of the
>> less restrictively licensed work then they could go and take a copy
>> under that license and so become a licensee under that license.
>
>Mia, I think you are missing the play in my example. The BY-SA is at a lower
>quality than the BY-NC-ND. Can they get a copy of each and then transfer the
>BY-SA to the higher quality copy? I was told they could because it was the
>same "work" as far as copyright law was concerned. I was told that, in
>effect, I had given the BY-SA license out for the work and that the higher
>quality file was an instance of the same work and not a different work under
>copyright law.
>
>This is why I have asked for a good while now if this has to be this way. I
>would like to, and had started to, explore a funding model where I could
>preset sales volumes where better and better quality "versions" of works
>could move to BY-SA over time.
>
>I will see if I can find the original thread in the archives and post a link.
>
>all the best,
>
>drew
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 5:30 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 December 2006 07:57 am, Mia Garlick wrote:
>> >> actually, i disagree....see e.g., clause 7(b) (referring to the BY
>> >> license for ease of reference) confirms that: "Notwithstanding the
>> >> above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under
>> >> different license terms..."
>> >>
>> >> the license is non-exclusive, thus it is perfectly acceptable for a
>> >> licensor to offer one version under a CC license and one under
>> >> separate licensing terms.
>> >
>> > I am happy to hear you disagree, so just to be sure we are on the
>> > same page
>> > Mia, here is what I was trying to do:
>> >
>> > http://www.ourmedia.org/node/42417
>> > http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
>> > http://www.lulu.com/zotz
>> >
>> > So, are you saying that if I release a photo at 640X480 under BY-SA
>> > and
>> > 800X600 BY-NC-ND, a person could not take the 800X600 and apply the
>> > BY-SA
>> > license to it as they have such a license for "the work"???
>> >
>> > I know I can give out different licenses, the question is can a
>> > person "move
>> > licenses" to other versions that they have of the same work? I hope
>> > that it
>> > is clear what I am asking.
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> >
>> > drew
>> >
>> >> On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:14 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
>> >>> On Thursday 14 December 2006 02:55 am, Amit Yadav wrote:
>> >>>> hi all,
>> >>>> i wanted to know if it is possible to have a song file at say 128
>> >>>> kbps
>> >>>> under CC license and have another file (of the same song) at say
>> >>>> 256kbps under Copyright (the usual "all rights reserved" one) when
>> >>>> both files are of the same recording




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page