Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 25 February 2007 03:18 pm, Javier Candeira wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I did misunderstand your point, and thanks for clarifying it. I now think
> what you want is a intermediate license between by-sa and by-nc-sa, maybe
> one with terms similar to the "no advertising use" for music in the
> sampling licenses. I am right?

Not quite, What I think people are saying they want, and I am not against it 
in principle is for BY-SA or a variation of BY-SA to forbid making or 
distributing copies where the work is linked with meaning to non BY-SA works 
or at least non-copyleft or perhaps even non-Free works. So you could not use 
their BY-SA photos of animals in your ARR book about animals. Or their BY-SA 
photo of a natural disaster in your ARR news account of that disaster? They 
see, and I think rightly I might add, that despite how copyright law treats 
the situation, that the book links the text and the photos in some tight 
manner. It would perhaps be different if they had a book about animals and 
the photos were all of cars, but even there I am not sure. Perhaps it is more 
to do with what is marketed and sold?

I do see that it could take a lot of work to try and get this right if it is 
even possible to do it clearly.
>
> > So, again I ask, do we need both variations of this copyleft license? Not
> > that I want yet another license mind you.
>
> Erm, or maybe you don't want an intermediate license, but I think I got
> your point.

I want it and I don't want it. I would prefer BY-SA to be changed perhaps, 
but 
it seems others like it as is. Hence the question.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Good point. Let me say it again. Point.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- javier candeira

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)