Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 15 January 2007 09:28 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Monday 15 January 2007 08:03 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> >> drew Roberts skrev:
> >>> Does anyone know which it is in fact?
> >>
> >> A derivative work must be the result of a _creative act_ originating
> >> from a human being. If a machine down- or upsamples a work there is no
> >> creative act involved, it's a just a mechanical transformation. A
> >> "thumbnail" is therefore a copy and not a derivative work.
> >
> > Fine. A clear answer. Thanks. Now may I ask my original question that
> > concerned me in this area again?
> >
> > I was trying to license 640X480 images BY-SA and sell higher resolution
> > versions with the promise that as I reached $X in sales, the higher
> > resolution one would change to BY-SA as well. And so on.
> >
> > The point was made that this would not really work for me. Someone could
> > get the low resolution version. Buy one copy of the high resolution
> > version. "Apply" the BY-SA from the low resolution copy of the work to
> > the high resolution version they had purchased under a different license
> > and go to town.
> >
> > That made some sense to me and I stopped pushing my plans.
> >
> > Some time later, I took part in discussion that concluded the opposite. I
> > think Magnatune was brought up as an example in that thread.
> >
> > Can you explain your take on how this all works?
>
> In my book the low and high resolution images are the same work. The
> license is obviously worded so that all versions of a work (but not
> derivative works created by the licensor) are covered by the license.
> All versions or editions of a work are thus covered by the grant in
> section 3 (license grant). So - yes - if you offered a low resolution
> image under BY-SA, the high resolution image (being the same work) would
> also be available under the same terms. That outcome might not be
> intended by some (many?) licensor's but it follows from the language of
> the license. Btw I seem to recall that this issue (or a very similar
> one) has been discussed (to some length) on this list - can't remember
> how long ago.

It has been discussed. At least twice as I remember things. Also if my memory 
serves, the first time I came away with the impression that you are putting 
forward, but I think the second time, the opposite. let me see if I can find 
both threads and post them.

If indeed you are correct, will CC consider a change in wording that would 
allow licensing the "instance" and derivatives based on the instance instead 
of the work?

>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954