Development of Creative Commons licenses

["James Grimmelmann" <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

That post discusses both "modification" (possibly as defined in the
FDL) and "derivative" and it's not clear whether it's meant to talk
about one, to talk about both, or to assume that the two are the same.

James

On 5/9/07, rob AT robmyers.org <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
> (I'm posting this here because of the recent debate about photography.)
>
> The FSF have blogged about their interpretation of the scope of the FDL:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope
>
> They support the position that Ben Mako Hill described, where use of
> an image to illustrate a text creates a derivative. It's well worth a
> read.
>
> I was particularly interested by this statement:
>
> "In cases like these where the materials complement each other, we
> believe that the end result is a derivative work."
>
> This contains two useful distinctions. The materials have been chosen
> to complement each other to form a unit of presumably increased value
> or greater use rather than just being aggregated. And *the end result*
> is the derivative work, not the text or the photo, so legal causality
> isn't broken.
>
> What I am curious about is what exactly this "end result" is
> (collective work, new multimedia work, or ...?) and how far-reaching
> this effect is (particularly with regard to e.g. contextual
> advertising).
>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses