Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Peter Brink wrote:
> 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.

Now Peter - this may be very clear to you as you are used the the
language of copyright licenses.  For me as a lay person a resized
or printed version of my original jpg file is everything but original
format.

If the above FAQ is the only clarification that Creative Commons
provides so that I as a licensor can make an informed decision
about cc-by-sa it is not sufficient by any means.

For a lay person's reading of this paragraph I would consider the FAQ
entry misleading at best.

> 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 begin to understand that now.  CC is however not doing a good job when
it talks about the concepts of Share-Alike.  My intention as a content
creator was to license my work so that sites that publish their content
under a similar license (most notably the wiki family) could use my work
but that my work cannot be used for a free ride to increase the value of
non-free editorial content.  The side effect is that you seem to make
wikimedia the worlds largest gratis stock photography agency.

Conceptually:
Without licensing my work under a CC or alike license I hold the
exclusive rights to my work.  Now I can certainly grant another person
the rights to copy my work, either for free or for money.  And I can
certainly do this for any number of people.  Now why isn't it possible
to come up with a license that defines this group of people as those
who are willing to combine my work with Free content only?

    Wolfgang