Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 01 December 2007 22:00:52 Gavin Baker wrote:
> (I'm replying all, so apologies if this message is an intrusion. Since
> my primary recipient is cc-licenses, I'll be very brief and direct.)
>
> I share Erik's concern with the working of CC licenses in relation to
> "embedded" media.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the CC licenses consider such a use a "collection"
> (used under the right to copy, granted by all CC licenses) rather than a
> "derivative work" (used under the right to modify -- only granted by
> licenses without the No Derivatives clause, and subject to the Share
> Alike clause under some licenses).
>
> However, I don't think this is how users of the SA or ND licenses expect
> the license to work. They understand and expect that their work might be
> included in an archive alongside works of various licenses; they don't
> consider this a derivative work. But when your photo is printed in a
> magazine alongside text, the use feels very derivative. It feels like
> the kind of use you were trying to prevent (ND) or to restrict to
> similarly-licensed works (SA).
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there must be a way to make the distinction
> between an item in a database and a photograph on the page of a
> magazine. I think that most users of CC licenses with the SA or ND
> clauses would agree that the clause should work this way.

I think I must not be explaining my thought clearly enough here:

I think the test should be this: does the "thing" my BY-SA photo or whatever 
is "used in" has a copyright / is copyrighted / is copyrightable. (Or 
protected by related rights or other similar "rights") ... or not.

If it does, I want that copyright licensed BY-SA. To be honest, a Free 
license 
that would let me pull whatever parts of the work I want into my future 
BY-SAworks would probably work fine though. So long as my "embedded" bit was 
still BY-SA.

And to do this, deny permission to copy / distribute unless the party agrees 
to do this.

Shouldn't that work?
>
> However, we should avoid the creation of a new license if at all
> possible.

The only way to do that would be to change the current BY-SA from a weak one 
to a strong one.

This may not be the best for the "trust CC" metric. If CC is willing to do 
that, can I trust them not to do it in the reverse direction at some later 
date? And with the "or later version" language, I would not like the results. 
(generic "I" there.)

> I do not think it is necessary here. What we need is not 
> another license, but for the existing CC licenses to operate the way
> their users would expect.
>
> P.S. A hearty kudos to everyone who helped make CC/GFDL compatibility
> possible!

all the best,

drew