Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
  • Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:03:34 +0100

wolfgang wander skrev:

Now looking at this FAQ - it requires 'a collection of works in their
exact original format, not adaptations'. In my view:

* any print of a digital image is an adaptation and
certainly not the original format.
* any editorial use of my full size image (it has
to be scaled, maybe cropped) is an adaptation
and certainly neither one is the original format.

Even this very much hidden-from-view FAQ would very clearly exclude
editorial use of my images.

No. It very clearly does not. An adaptation is a transformation of a work, a translation being the classic example. Copies are not adaptations. If you scan an picture and create a digital image of that picture you create a copy. This follows from how that concept (copying) is defined in copyright law. cropping and scaling are not transformative enough for the end result to become an adaptation.


As I said before - for a photographer the SA part of the license
is only meaningful if it refers to the reuse of the image in an
editorial context. Otherwise there is hardly any difference between an
SA and a non-SA license.

I would also like to stress that the above FAQ does not address the
creators rights but is solely written from the re-user's perspective.

For me when I am asked to chose a license on
http://creativecommons.org/license/
and I click on 'more info' for 'share alike' I need to have the
example of image/text combination in this little pop-up box to make
an informed decision.

I doubt that the majority of flickr's cc-by-sa content creators are
aware of or would even remotely agree to your interpretation.

CC's licenses (as does all open source/open content licenses) build upon copyright law. They do not extend nor do they expand the scope of protection allowed under copyright law (which would be the case if your interpretation was correct). The distinction btw adaptation and copying is not one created by this community it follows from the common usage of those concepts in copyright law.

I should stress however that the _exact_ meaning and scope of the concepts "work", "copy", "derivate work", "collective work" and "independent work" differs somewhat in the U.K., the U.S. and Europe. The difference is not huge, in most cases it doesn't matter in the end, but in some cases it might be significant. For example, in the U.K. a 3D work (such as a sculpture) that is based on a 2D work is considered a copy, in the U.S. courts would seem to treat such a work as a derivative work (the Kuntz case), but in civil law countries (such as Sweden) such a work would most likely be seen as a independent work.

/Peter Brink




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page