Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 02 March 2007 06:29 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> wolfgang wander skrev:
> > 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.
>
> That the syncing of movies and sound kicks of the copyleft part of the
> license has always seemed odd to me. There is no reason that is should.
> That one work is inspired by another does not make it a derivative work.
> I guess it has to do with a provision in the U.S. copyright act, there
> is certainly no such rule in the Swedish copyright act (or in any of the
> other Scandinavian countries either AFAIK).
>
> Also there is, in my mind, no "semantic syncing" between text and
> pictures. In general one can remove either and the remaining part is
> unchanged, i.e. the two are really independent of each other.
>
> Dependency is really only the case with adaptations and that is why the
> law treats adaptations as it does. To extend copyleft beyond adaptations
> would, IMHO, be a tragic mistake on the part of CC. Such a change would
> _decrease_ the users freedom to re-use. It would, for example, become
> impossible to use works with different licenses on the same webbpage or
> in the same publication.

And I am beginning to fell the opposite. The GPL has worked well in the 
software world and it plainly says it extends to collective works. Just not 
mere aggregation.

Please read the relevant part of the GPL and ponder. They make the collective 
as a whole be GPL, the non-derivative parts are not forced to be GPL outside 
of the collective work.

Remember, this is only really applicable to the SA licenses. (If not, that is 
the only ones that have any need for it.)

Otherwise, where in law is the difference between a collection and 
non-collection spelled out. After all, a book is generally a collection of 
chapters. A chapter a collection of paragraphs. A paragraph a collection of 
words. A word a collection of letters. Are we gonna display a page and then 
have a copyright table saying letters 1,5,11 are BY-SA, letters 21,56,75 are 
BY, words 6, 25-60 are BY-SA, words 70-95 are BY, everything else on the page 
is ARR?

I know that is stupid, but can someone who knows tell me where the boundry is 
legally and how it would be determined?


>
> /Peter Brink


all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)