Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Erik Moeller" <erik AT wikimedia.org>]

On 2/21/07, Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com> wrote:

> I consider CC-by-sa a true copyleft license for non-programmatic works, and
> I use it for my photos because I want them to be freely usable, and to stay
> that way even after they have been used by others.

This is the case with CC-BY.

> In the case that a newspaper printed my CC-by-sa photo, that photo would be
> copiable by anyone, even from that newspaper. This would mean that,
> according to the license, the paper would not be allowed to use DRM software
> so the photo is uncopyable, or to prosecute anyone for commercial use of
> that photo *as printed on the paper*.

This is the case with CC-BY, unless the paper actually makes
modifications to the photo.

> It would also mean that any enhancement, cropping or other editing of the
> photo would fall under the realm of "derivative works", and would have to be
> licensed under cc-by-sa if they want my permission to distribute it.

It is highly doubtful that any basic cropping or editing would be
creative and copyrightable in the first place. If there is more than
basic editing, then this is indeed where the current CC-BY-SA clause
makes a difference. However, with photos, this is clearly only a small
part of the overall use.

> How more copyleft can it get?

See my earlier email. It is also not about "anything that touches the
work", it's about combinations where there exists a clear semantic
dependency, i.e. the meaning of one enriches the meaning of the other.
So, as I pointed out, not the whole newspaper would have to be free,
but the article where the picture is used. This is clearly
significantly more copyleft than the current behavior.

> Also, under the CC-by-sa licensing terms, if someone used my photostream to
> base a film on it, the film itself would have to be CC-by-sa, and that is my
> intention.

Indeed, CC-BY-SA explicitly treats films different from other works here.

> The whole point of copyleft is to declare a work free so nobody can make it
> unfree

That would be achieved by a simple license that only forces unfettered
distribution of the _original_ (e.g. by stating the URL where it is
available). But none of the copyleft licenses do that; they all extend
to derivatives. The _added value_ must be liberated, which in the case
where copyleft was originally invented -- software -- can be quite a
bit. In the case of pictures, the added value is typically not the
editing or cropping of the picture itself, but the use of the picture
to enrich another work.

You yourself cite the example of a film. CC-BY-SA explicitly requires
a whole film -- could be a 90 minute documentary -- to be licensed
freely, if it uses one piece of CC-BY-SA music. A work in which
millions are invested has to be wholly free just if it uses one track
from a CC-BY-SA garage band. If you are worried about the encroachment
of copyleft, you should be worried about such scenarios.

But the same principle does _not_ apply (at least according to some
interpretations) if a picture is used in an article.

Your position is therefore clearly inconsistent and reflects the
internal inconsistency of the license.

> Saying that the photo's
> copyright allows me to claim rights on the article copy is like saying that
> any book on Emacs should be GPL if it is sold accompanied by a CD with the
> GPLd code.

The CD adds _value_ to the book, but does it add _meaning_? If the
book and CD extensively reference each other, then arguably it does.
Even with the current "separate and independent" language, one could
then argue that the works are not, in fact, separate and
_independent_, because the book loses meaning when it no longer has
the CD, in the same way it would lose meaning when you tear out a
page.

What we have here is a dilemma between weak and strong copyleft. The
current CC-BY-SA license is partially weak (when it comes to pictures
in combination with articles) and partially strong (when it comes to
moving images in combination with sounds or music). It should either
be one or the other -- and if it is not to become a strong copyleft
license, then it may be necessary to define a CC-BY-SA+, or a license
outside of the Creative Commons framework, to achieve that goal.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic