Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] multiple licenses of same image

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] multiple licenses of same image
  • Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:51:44 +0100

Mia Garlick skrev:

On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Peter Brink wrote:

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.


I agree that a careful reader would notice that since the license is non-exclusive the scope of license would seem to be limited that version of a work which is explicitly made available under the license - because otherwise the license would not be non-exclusive. The fact that the licensee reasonably became aware of the license by reading the license it self and that the license must have been included with that specific copy (or instance) of the work being offered for use would seem to imply that the licensor only had that specific copy or version of the work in mind when he issued the license. But now I’m making deductions based on what seems to make sense – if I want to safeguard the interests of the licensor.

Unfortunately, on the other hand such a reading is contradicted by the definition of "work" = "the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License". The concept "work" reasonably covers all versions, editions; re-castings etc. who does not in them self constitute a derivative work. The source of the confusion is thus the use of the concept “work”. The deed is no less clear – rather on the contrary.

I perfectly understand that using another word than “work” doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps one could rewrite section 3? For example: "’Work’ means the particular instance of a copyrightable work of authorship which is offered under the terms of this License.”

/Peter Brink




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page