Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Will Martin <wdmartin AT mail.utexas.edu>]

Hmm.  An interesting response.  But I'm still puzzled, I'm afraid;  
Joachim's response boils down to "you can apply the license to  
whichever parts you choose."  But I'm not asking about what I can  
choose to do; I'm asking about what I'm obligated to do.

From where I sit, it seems to me that a web page constitutes a single  
composite work.  Although one web page can incorporate many logically  
distinct bits and pieces (such as HTML code, CSS code, text, and  
images), it doesn't make sense to license each bit of those  
separately, because every single bit is required in order for the  
whole to make sense.

Consider my test case. (atuan.com/MonkeyShines)

If you take away the HTML, it's not a web page any more.

If you take away the CSS, all the formatting (and the images) vanish.

If you take away the images, you have the words "Who needs a  
typewriter?" next to a Shakespeare quote.  Which doesn't really make  
any sense.

If you take away the text, then you have a picture of a monkey and an  
empty thought bubble.  Which also doesn't make any sense.

It's only with ALL of those present that the bits come together to  
make some kind of sense: a cutesy play on the old "infinite monkeys  
with typewriters could eventually bang out the complete works of  
Shakespeare at random" thing.  It's like a collage: made up of  
individual works, but also a composite work in and of itself.   
Collages don't have separate licenses for the separate bits.  Why  
should a web page?

Furthermore, my test case uses a modified version of the monkey photo.  
 The photo used to have a forest background, which I removed.  My  
modified version therefore counts as an "Adaptation" as defined in the  
BY-NC-SA license, section 1(a).  And since the modified photo is an  
integral part of a larger work (the web page), that means I have a  
legal obligation to license the whole web page under the BY-NC-SA  
license, pursuant to section 4(b).

That, as I understand it, is what I am obligated to do if I choose to  
use a ShareAlike photo as a part of a web page.  Is that right?  I'd  
be pleased to no end if I could use ShareAlike photos and just release  
the modified version of the photo, keeping the rest of the site  
licensed however I please.  That would make me very happy.  But I  
don't think I can.

I've been avoiding photos with ShareAlike licenses ever since Creative  
Commons was founded for specifically this reason, and it grieves me,  
because there are so many cool ones I could otherwise use!  In a  
couple of cases I've specifically asked a photographer to waive the  
ShareAlike clause so I could use it in good conscience.  But that's a  
pain in the butt, and not always possible (e.g. if I find the photo  
and the photographer's name but no contact details).  I'd be much  
happier if somebody can explain to me that my interpretation of the  
license is wrong in some way.

Will Martin