Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

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