Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 15 January 2007 02:56 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Peter Brink wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> > 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.
>
> this is not the way CC licenses work and contravenes the language of
> the license and its intent. this has already been explained on this
> list.  eg., just because larry releases a PDF version of his book
> under a CC license, does not give you the right to walk into any
> bookstore and demand a free copy of the hardcopy or exercise rights
> possible in respect of the PDF with regard to the hardcopy.

Mia, of course things would not hold for getting a free hard copy and using 
that in your example might throw in a monkey wrench and make things harder to 
understand for those of us who are ignorant.

It might be clearer if we dealt with this:

You take some pictures with your digital camera: resolution = 2048X1536

You have a script that calls ImageMagick components 
( http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php ) to automatically make lower 
resolution versions at 640X480, 800X600, and 1024X768.

You put the 640X480 versions up at ourmedia.org with a BY-SA license. You 
offer the higher resolution versions for sale at lulu.com with standard 
copyright licenses.

I get a free copy from ourmedia and buy a copy of the 2048X1536 from lulu.

The case people keep discussing is if all versions are the same "work" in the 
eyes of copyright law. And if so, if giving the license to the work to a 
person gives him the same license to all copies of thtat work that the person 
legitimately comes into posession of.

(I know that I could release my 640X480 version and keep the others under 
wraps until I was ready and no one could force me to give them a copy no 
matter what license I had given on the work.)

So, if things don't work like this, is there something in the license 
language 
that is confusing people and that could be worded differently to avoid this 
confusion?
>
> > 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.
> >
> > /Peter Brink

all the best,

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