Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 28 January 2007 09:28 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> Terry Hancock skrev:
> > 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.
> >
> > Okay, another case:
> >
> > I write a novel as a raw text file on computer. I sell copies of this
> > novel under an ARR "license".
> >
> > I then run the novel through an automatic filter which removes every
> > other chapter and all remaining vowels. There is no creative activity in
> > this process -- it's completely automated, and takes perhaps 5-20 lines
> > of Python code to implement. I license the reduced work online
> > under CC-By-SA.
> >
> > Do people who have downloaded that work have the right to purchase the
> > novel, copy its text, and use it under the By-SA terms?
> >
> > This seems implausible to me, but it is pretty much the same as the
> > image case you describe (a lossy, but uncreative transformation).
>
> In the case above the author has published a copy of his work in the
> form of a printed book. Then later he makes another copy of the work
> available for download under CC-BY-SA license. The license only applies
> to the later copy, even though both publications are copies of the same
> work. The author has explicitly reserved all rights to the first
> publication and only granted additional right to the second copy.
>
> One could also take the stance that the later publication is a new work.
> An author is free to manipulate and modify his works as he sees fit.
> Even if the first publication shares almost 50% of it's content with the
> later, one may argue that the author has created a new work. The text as
> such is a result of a creative act, that the editing process is not,
> does not reduce the originality of the text itself. When an author edits
> a work of his and there is a substantial difference between the original
> and the edited version it's quite likely that a new work has been
> created. If someone else did the same type of editing then a new work
> (or a derivative) work would not be created because this second person
> has not added any original content to the work.

From:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode


1. Definitions

e.      "Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the 
terms 
of this License.

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise 
the rights in the Work as stated below:

As much as I would like the only to the "tagged" copy theory to be correct, 
please explain in relation to the actual language of the license itself.

Unless the two copies are different copyrightable works of authorship, how 
can 
you not choose whichever license you want for whichever copy of the work you 
desire?

If they are indeed different copyrightable works of authorship, then there is 
no problem.
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

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