Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>]

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Image libraries seem to have no trouble defining the circumstances in 
> which use
> of their copyrighted material requires payment, or the scope and nature of 
> use
> that they will consider at all. They do not use an existing narrow right, 
> they
> use an existing blanket right and give permission to exercise this right in
> narrow circumstances with carefully worded limits and requirements.
> 
> So real-world experience shows that the case of illustrations doesn't 
> need a new
> narrow right, it doesn't need the meaning of any legal terms to be 
> changed, and
> it doesn't need the scope of the license to be limited discretely by the
> terminology used by the law.

I stand corrected.

> For a copyleft license the case of illustration needs the scope of the 
> license
> to expand to cover reproduction in a few carefully defined cases where
> reproduction rather than derivation creates a context where "share and share
> alike" is broken.

Yes, I had surmised so from Drew Roberts' clarification of his point.

> Assuming that doing so isn't harmful.

Which should have been the thrust of my argument, instead of going for a
diversion.

Thanks for the lesson,

- javier