Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 01 March 2007 06:52 am, wolfgang wander wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > [...] we see exactly this situation
> > as asymetrical. And that the license provides little value ot the person
> > using the BY-Sa license in this instance.
>
> This asymmetry is a very good point and the reasoning for it should
> probably be expanded a bit here:

Wolfgang, the asymmetry I was refering to was of a different nature. That is, 
I am sharing alike, but the other person isn't.

I am beginning to wonder if SA has much real power at all as written. The 
thing is, with code we have some sort of test as to if something is a part of 
the same thing or not. Linking in the case of compiled code for one. Is there 
an equivalent when it comes to photos, texts, etc?
>
> For a text, copying it verbatim does not invoke the derivative clause but
> text stays text and is then fully available to any user downstream as if
> it had been just republished on a different medium or host.

Does fixing spelling, punctuation, and other minor things make a derivative 
or 
a cleaned up copy.

Also, what is the ususal and customary unit of work that the copyright is 
sought on in the real world? I think I must be asking this worng again and 
again as no one is responding. Either that, or I may be seeing possible 
importance to the answer to this question where no one else does.
>
> For a photo, without invoking the derivative clause you can: crop,
> shrink, transform its color space, desaturate and raster-print it.  A user
> downstream will most likely get a very different representation of
> your original work.

Would a collage make a derivative work or a collection of cropped works?
>
> Furthermore it strikes me as odd that the time syncing of movies and
> sound invokes the derivative clause while the semantic syncing
> of photographs with text (in heavily modified: resized, recropped,
> desaturated) form does not.

I think this is a big stumbling block conceptually. But the underlying 
copyright law is out of whack itself, so it should not be surprising that 
things don't always make sense to those of us not deep in the art...

Imagine I made a sculpture of the car of the future as I imagined it in my 
head. Imagine further that I arranged to exibit it on the street outside of a 
museum on a public street in one of the parking spaces. What copyright fun?
>
>    Thanks!
>            Wolfgang

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)