Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] ShareAlike extent

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ShareAlike extent
  • Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:26:55 +0100

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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page