Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Dana Powers" <dana.powers AT gmail.com>]

I'm not sure that is true.  Almost everything is "mechanical" at some
level.  Couldn't you argue that there is some creativity in the
selection of whether/how to modify, even if the modification process
itself is quite algorithmic.?  I would think that interpolation
algorithms would be a prime candidate for this.  Although I'm not up
to date on the creativity threshold applied by courts these days, I
had thought it was quite low.

dp

On 1/16/07, Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 14:03 +0100, Peter Brink wrote:
> >>> 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.
>  >
> >> There is no such thing as "upsampling" so this logic cannot apply to
> >> versions of a work at higher resolution than offered.
>
> If you call it upsampling, downsampling or sidesampling or whatever
> doesn't matter. A "work" must be the result of a creative act - the same
> goes for derivative works. A mechanical transformation is in itself not
> a creative act, the result of such a transformation is a copy and not a
> derivative work. If I scan a picture and make two versions available,
> one in low resolution and one in high resolution, those two images are
> _copies_ of the _same work_.
>
> /Peter Brink
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses