Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 02 December 2007 11:29:36 Rob Myers wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
>  > a "copyright arising" concept.
>
> The CC licenses are currently strongly tied to this concept. A "strong
> copyleft" would replace it with a concept of "use".

Nope. At least I am fairly certain you have not understood me properly. It 
could easily be to my not stating things properly though.

Now, perhaps we need to go further than I imagine and into the realm you 
bring 
up, but I am not thinking along those lines yet.

If you put a bunch of my BY-SA works on a storage medium in such a way that 
there is no copyright other than the individual copyrights on the works on 
the medium, then according to the terminology I have been trying to use, no 
copyright arises. The person putting the works on the medium isn't claiming 
one, and furthermore, the law will not give them one automatically.

But, if there is some new copyright that comes from putting the works 
together 
in a certain way, then the terms of the strong copyleft license kicks in.

Is that any clearer?

So, if a copyright arises, a stronger copyleft would at least require a Free 
license on the new copyright and that license would need to be compatible 
with the "embedded" copyleft license and all other "embedded" works would 
also need (?) to be under compatible Free licenses.

Gavin Baker is thinking along the same lines I am from what I can tell:

"(FWIW, although CC licenses have previously been passed to downstream
users through the right of modification, I think it is worth considering
tying this to some different right."

We could of course decide to go for it even where no copyright*** arises 
but...

*** or related right - we would want to cover those from what I have been 
learning lately about how Europe (some of at least) handles these things.
>
> NC already has a concept of use, and has been recommended as a
> substitute for BY-SA for photographs to prevent precisely this breaking
> of people's expectation of reciprocal use. It would be better to satisfy
> this expectation with stronger copyleft than to push NC as the wrong
> solution to the wrong problem.
>
> Possibly the collective copyright on the combined works could be used,
> or the copyright on the layout (if one exists). We talked about these
> possibilities the last time photo licensing came up on cc-licenses.
> Failing that the use context can be defined by example.

I think here we are closer together.
>
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>  > I like all of your points, including the last one, but it is a little
>  > unclear.  I think what you mean is that for "embedded" uses, the
>  > containing document should have to be under a free license, not
>  > necessarily a compatible copyleft license.  This would address use of
>  > copyleft images on Wikinews (CC BY), for example.
>
> It would have to be free rather than just CC. Using BY-SA within an NC
> or ND context would break reciprocity for example.

Right, it would have to be a Free license that is compatible with the new 
BY-SA or the BY-SA+ license.
>
>  > I don't know why yet another class of license would be needed --
>  > presumably it could be the next version of CC BY-SA.
>
> I personally would much prefer the next BY-SA to be stronger, but if its
> effects were different enough from the current license then it could be
> legally or politically difficult to still call the license BY-SA.
>
> Gavin Baker wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Since it is possible to charge for the use of photographs as
> illustrations and to reserve the ability to do this in commercial
> contexts by using the NC licence, I'd say it must be possible.
>
> The other examples I've been asked about more than once are an article
> in a magazine, a song on a CD or in a radio show, and a TV show on a TV
> channel. At which point would the requriement of a free context stop?
> And at which point would this requirement become self-defeating or
> exploitative? The limit of copyleft is sometimes a pragmatic issue or a
> matter of respecting other people's self-determination.
>
> > P.S. A hearty kudos to everyone who helped make CC/GFDL compatibility
> > possible!
>
> Yes!
>
> Er, as long as invariant sections cannot be added to derivatives of
> BY-SA works. SFDl/BY-SA would be best.
>
> Terry Hancock wrote:
>  > The thing is, that as things stand, some producers feel cheated by the
>  > existing SA, but the changed one would make many consumers feel
>  > cheated.
>
> Would it? And would any of these consumers feel cheated of anything
> other than cheating producers out of a reciprocal right to use work that
> benefits from their own?
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew