Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

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