Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Peter Brink wrote:
> If you call it upsampling, downsampling or sidesampling or whatever 
> doesn't matter.

I think the point was that there is no non-creative way to convert a
low-resolution image to a high-resolution image. You must add
information to do that, and that implies some level of creativity.

> 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_.

Perhaps so. This seems like a plausible, but debatable legal theory. Can
we clarify what jurisdiction(s) you feel this applies to? Your email
address suggests Sweden (at least that's what I think "se" is, please
correct me if I'm wrong).

I know there are significant differences between US, Australia,
European, and Japanese copyright laws -- many of which reduce to
fundamentally different perspectives of the purpose and basis of copyright.

I'm not challenging you, but this is a potentially very important point,
as drew has observed, and there have been at least two long threads on
this subject coming to opposite consensuses. (!)  So any point where a
disconnect can occur is probably worth exploring.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com