Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 15 February 2007 07:53 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> wolfgang wander skrev:
> > If you ..., BUILD UPON THIS WORK' which I clearly
> > understand as an inclusion of my images in editorial content.
>
> Well, that is a misunderstanding. In fact, (IMO) there are two false
> assumptions here.
>
> A) When you use works (for example a text about racing cars and some
> photos of such cars) as building blocks to create a collective work,
> then the components used are treated as having independent copyrights.
> They might supplement each other but that doesn't make one or the other
> a derivative work. You of course need permission to copy and publish the
> works that makes up the collective work but that is granted by the
> license. 

Ah, but does it have to be granted in the license? Why was the decision made 
to grant these uses? What are the pros and cons, which of them were 
considered? Do we need a license for each desire?

> An editor that uses your photos to supplement a text on a 
> website does not build upon your work, he copies the photo but he does
> not adapt it.
>
> B) The CC-licenses are designed to extend the scope of choices available
> for _creators_ and thereby indirectly extend the freedom of users to
> re-use. They are not designed to extend one creators control over other
> creators independent works.

I don't think this actually holds. For instance, NC does extend one creators 
control over other creators independent works.
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)