cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
- From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name>
- 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: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:38:22 +0000
On Tue, 2007-20-02 at 18:24 -0500, wolfgang wander wrote:
> The surprise factor comes from the apparent lack of bite for the SA
> part of the license. Most people I know expect SA to mean Share Alike
> even or especially when your photographs are used in an editorial
> context, which means that the resulting work, in which a publisher has
> built upon your photographs and enhanced the value of his article,
> should be licensed under an Open (or Alike) license. This is not the
> case.
That's not entirely true. My limited understanding is that it is still
undecided whether an illustration combined with text is a derivative
work of that image, when you're talking about an image embedded in a
Web page. Media are miscible; whether an illustrated article is a single
mixed-media work or two separate and merely juxtaposed works is probably
pretty context sensitive.
I think it's probably a bad idea to look to Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Commons as an example here. Wikimedia users _want_ images and text to be
distinct and thus not subject to copyleft rules, but this is largely
because Wikipedia folks have been _extremely_ sloppy about images and
copyright in the past.
Wikimedia Commons is more interesting in the context of license
compatibility and authors' comfort level. Most photographers who've made
their works available under a license technically incompatible with the
GFDL (Wikipedia's and most Wikimedia projects' default license) don't
seem to care one bit that their work is distributed on Wikimedia
Commons. Why? Because the spirit of the licenses are roughly the same,
and because the details that us license junkies think are
galaxy-shattering really don't matter to most creators.
In any event, the most important thing to take away from this is that
text and images combined in an article is a grey area.
~Evan
________________________________________________________________________
Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.name/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
, (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, rob, 02/26/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, drew Roberts, 02/26/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, Rob Myers, 02/27/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, drew Roberts, 02/27/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, Terry Hancock, 02/28/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, drew Roberts, 02/28/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, Gregory Maxwell, 02/25/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, teun spaans, 02/21/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, wolfgang wander, 02/21/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, Erik Moeller, 02/21/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, Evan Prodromou, 02/22/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images, drew Roberts, 02/25/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.