Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 25 February 2007 09:46 am, Javier Candeira wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >> Another solution would be to change the law, or the doctrine, so music
> >> in a movie *doesn't* trigger share-alike, and is considered "mere
> >> aggregation". We need less strictures, not more.
> >
> > Ah, not all of us agree with that. I like the way it works for songs and
> > movies. I would like it to work that way for more types of things. Can
> > you tell me the problems you see arising from my desires?
>
> I am against extending the concept of derivativeness for the same reason
> Strenghtening copyleft by creating more rights (or extending the reach of
> those rights) is solving the wrong problem. The more we lower the bar for
> "derivativeness" or "related works" or whatever the legal term, the more we
> strenghten copyright, and with it the grasp of the copyright cartel over
> culture.

I think you misunderstand my point then. We do not need to redefine what a 
derivative is, we just need to state that copylefted works of the BY-SA 
variety cannot be used even in mere aggregation with non-copylefted works. 
One work would not be deemed a derivative of another, the license would 
simply forbid using a BY-SA work alongside non-copyleft works.

Now, I imagine the details would need some serious hammering out, but I have 
seen no reasons as to why it cannot be done, just statements that it is not 
currently  the case.

But I do agree with you fully that we do not need to be giving copyright more 
power. However, one of the beauties of copyleft is that it is able to use 
copyright against itself. One of the things people are objecting to is that 
this fails to happen in the case of photos alongside text.

And if people can put BY-SA photos alongside their ARR text, could they put 
BY-SA text alongside their ARR text? Could they use a BY-SA chorus alongside 
their ARR verses?
>
> And by extending the standard of "derivativeness" we would be making it
> more difficult to distribute our copyleft works alongside non-copyleft
> ones. The way it works now with photos, there are more nuances in the ways
> of distributing creative works, and the public is better served by more
> options of receiving those works. The way you and Erik want it to work,
> readers would not have less exposure to by-sa photos and their authors, as
> commercial non-free newspapers would not be able to print them.

Oh, but they would, they could just clear the rights like they do with ARR 
photos now. And nothing would stop us from making them disclose the copyleft 
nature of the photo itself as a part of the licensing agreement.

> Commercial 
> non-free newspapers would also have less freedom to print and use those
> photos according to the wishes of their authors.

So, again I ask, do we need both variations of this copyleft license? Not 
that 
I want yet another license mind you.
>
> My "music in a movie doesn't trigger share-alike" was a forced answer, a
> bit of ha-ha-only-serious, but I do mean it: if no voices or foley or any
> other kind of audio editing are performed on the music, I tink mere
> synching should not trigger copyleft, as the music could be retrieved from
> the soundtrack and re-published according to the terms of the original
> by-sa license.
>
> As to treating different types of thing alike, computer programs and
> literary texts are not treated alike in copyright law, nor are theatrical
> works and sculptures, why should photographs and music be treated alike?
> Consistence is an overrated virtue.

Well then, they can also be treated differently in the CC licenses. That 
might 
make for a nasty license, but you already point out that the underlying law 
is nasty already. (Again, not advocating this, just pointing it out at this 
point.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- javier candeira

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)