Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 16 January 2007 06:34 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 00:23 +0100, Peter Brink 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_.
>
> I think you missed my point.  It is impossible to recreate a high
> quality/bitrate/resolution work from a low quality/bitrate/resolution
> work, mechanically or otherwise.  To do so would be more than creative,
> it would be godlike.
>
> So how could offering a low quality version of a work under a license
> imply that a high quality version is also offered given there is no
> transformation, mechanical or otherwise, that can go from the version
> offered to the (higher quality) version not offered?

You get a low quality version under the license, say for free. You buy a high 
quality version (the low quality version is the result of down sampling, the 
high quality is the original) under a different license.

That is how you could come to be in posession of two versions under two 
different licenses. Any problems so far?

Now, people taking the position under discussion point out that the license 
is 
a license to the work.

They maintian that down sampling does not produce a new work according to 
copyright law, just a copy of the original work.

The argument then goes, since you have a license to the "work" you have that 
license to the work no matter which copy it is. No matter that you got one 
copy under a different license originally.

Not that you agree or disagree, but do you understand the argument so far?

If so, would you care to respond from here?
>
> Just a defender of entropy (as if it needs defense!), not a lawyer.
>
> Mike

all the best,

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