Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp wrote:
> 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. 

I think that this is correct, but I would not swear to it without more 
investigation.  I think Tomos is right that the critical fact is that 
the higher-resolution photo contains details that really are additional 
copyrightable expression.  If the difference between the two version 
were so small as to not make the difference copyrightable, then anyone 
encountering version A might be free to use the license given out with 
version B.  But because the originality threshold in copyright law is so 
low, bitrates of 128 and 256 kbps seem like they would be different enough.

This is not legal advice.

James