Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 27 January 2007 06:18 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > So again I ask, would it not be clearer to change the license from "the
> > work" to "this instance of the work and all instances made or derived
> > from it."
>
> Perhaps "licensed copy"? 

Whatever works and is less confusing than work in this instance. See your 
response to my question below.

Let's say I buy a copy of some work from you under a traditional ARR 
arrangement (I purchase a photograph from you.) Later, you decide to put all 
your photos from the year when you took the one I bought under BY-SA. Why 
can't I consider that you have given me a license to the work under new 
terms?

Is there something in the law or in the licenses that precludes this thinking?

> A quick check of a few Swedish standard form 
> contracts, dealing with copyright matters, reveals that the term "work"
> is only used when all economic rights to a works are transferred from
> the author to for example a publisher. The term "licensed copy" is used
> when the license only applies to the a specific copy of a work.
>
> > Plus, surely I can sell you a license without providing you with the work
> > itself at all?
>
> Yes of course. Collecting societies does this all the time. If I would
> own a restaurant I would have to pay a collecting society for playing
> music to entertain my guests and that license wouldn't be included with
> any of the CD's that I bought.
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

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