Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wolfgang wander <wwc AT lns.mit.edu>]

Peter Brink wrote:
> wolfgang wander skrev:
>> If you ..., BUILD UPON THIS WORK' which I clearly
>> understand as an inclusion of my images in editorial content.
>>
> 
> Well, that is a misunderstanding. In fact, (IMO) there are two false 
> assumptions here.
> 
> A) When you use works (for example a text about racing cars and some 
> photos of such cars) as building blocks to create a collective work, 
> then the components used are treated as having independent copyrights. 
> They might supplement each other but that doesn't make one or the other 
> a derivative work. You of course need permission to copy and publish the 
> works that makes up the collective work but that is granted by the 
> license. An editor that uses your photos to supplement a text on a 
> website does not build upon your work, he copies the photo but he does 
> not adapt it.
> 
> B) The CC-licenses are designed to extend the scope of choices available 
> for _creators_ and thereby indirectly extend the freedom of users to 
> re-use. They are not designed to extend one creators control over other 
> creators independent works.

If that is the case, which it may well be, this should be stated then
in very clear terms so that photographers who look for a copyleft
license (which cc-by-sa was commonly referred to) aren't falling in the
same trap as I did here obviously.

The current example about movie and sound seem to imply derivation but
if this is not the case for images and text, by cc's definition,
cc-by-sa is not an option for me and probably not for any of my
colleagues who published under a similar assumption.

CC's interpretation of what kind of license has to apply to a
combination of text and images should be given a very prominent
place on the creative commons website.

    Wolfgang