Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 26 February 2007 08:49 am, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:
> > 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?
>
> It is to do with use of the image as an illustration. Image libraries have
> no problem making and enforcing this distinction.

Yes, I understand that, but as I was writing that, I thought it might go 
deeper than that. This whole concept may be applicable to more than just 
photos and artwork used as illustrations.

As a far out example, consider a book made along the lines of "Computer 
Lib/Dream Machines" where one half was BY-SA photos and the other half was a 
story of some sort under an ARR license and yet where the whole book had some 
overall theme.

>
> So BY-SA currently reads:
>
> 1b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as
> encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts,
> or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f)
> below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents,
> constitute
> intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in
> unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each
> constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together
> are
> assembled into
> a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be
> considered
> an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
> Ideally it would be modified to read:
>
> 1b. [...]which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their
> contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included
> in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
> contributions WITHOUT BEING USED TO ILLUSTRATE OR ACCOMPANY THOSE
> CONTRIBUTIONS, each constituting separate and independent works in
> themselves, [...]
>
> But since this tries to redefine a legal term, we would instead add:
>
> 1x. "Illustration or Accompanyment". Licensed works used to illustrate or
> accompany another work do not make the illustrated or accompanied work an
> adaptation but can only be used to illustrate or accompany works also
> covered by this license. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a
> musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in
> timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will cause this clause to
> be in effect.

This could be a good start if all we are concerned about is illustrations, 
but 
at this early stage, i think it might be wise to discuss the possibility that 
this is a more general issue.

Is there anyone at this point that believes still that this cannot be done? 
(Not should not be done, we can have that discussion as well obviously.)
>
> Notice that I am not redefining the word "adaptation", and that this is not
> viral.

What do you mean by "this is not viral?"
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)