Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Michael Nottebrock <lofi AT freebsd.org>:

> My personal take on this is that since the definition g., which explains what
> the "Work" is, only defines the "work offered under the terms of this
> License", you don't need to apply that same definition to the "Adaptation"
> (the "work based upong the Work"), unless you /want/ to indeed put it under
> the same license.

For BY-SA, adaptations must be placed under the same license. This is  
how copyleft works.

You cannot arbitrarily decide that the "adaptation" doesn't have to be  
under the original license (unless it's Fair Use). This contradicts  
the license.

But, based on (US) copyright law, as far as I can tell, a web page is  
not an adaptation of an image that it just uses as an illustration. It  
may be a collective work.

This has the same effect as the scenario you describe, but is  
in-keeping with the terms of the license and copyright law.

> [...]
> Or for short: The copyleft of SA isn't viral.

Even under its standard interpretation it isn't. It cannot "infect"  
works that are not derivatives.

> [...]
> Of course, you won't get a definitive answer here (or anywhere else, except
> maybe at some point in court) anyway, since Creative Commons as an
> organization has no part in the dealings between the licensor (the copyright
> holder of the image) and the licensee (you). In the end, you will make up
> your mind on how you will interpret the license - seeking qualified legal
> advice (this mail isn't) might help you with making that decision.

Legal advice is always good, yes.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

- Rob.