Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Javier wrote:
>> Because I want to allow for modifications: paint on my photos and modify
>> them to make posters or desktop backgroun ds, make an animation or a
>> slideshow of them, improve my panoramas of which I post the "source" (a 
>> .xcf
>> gimp file)... and in those cases I would like the copyleft rule apply.
> 
> If someone takes your CC-By-SA work, and crops it to desktop aspect..
> do you really gain much by the result being CC-By-SA? Couldn't you

I don't think I do gain much, I think the final licensees do, for sure. Also
I said "paint on my photos and modify them", not "crop them". I meant clear
derivative works, for that's what by-sa is about: being able to modify and
share alike the modified work.

> simply perform the same change with almost as much ease as copying?
> What if they printed it out and you only received the print version;
> wouldn't it be easier and better to simply make the same changes
> rather than scanning their low resolution print?

Printed or online, or on a CD-ROM, modified or verbatim, by-sa means "you
can copy and modify it, but give your recipients the same license you
received". The fact that some other licensees use my photos unmodified
should not impose on them, that's my interpretation.

Using CC-by, as some have suggested, is not a solution here. CC-by does not
give the end licensees the obligation to share their modificationsj (when
they are real modifications, not mere aggregations). The -nc option that
some are advocating is also not what I want: I think it's healthy that
others may benefit from my shared work, and if I didn't want them to I would
signal it with -nc. Not the case here.

>From what I read in this list, and what I have heard in conversation with
other CC users (licensors and licensees), many think the by-sa licenses are
copyleft, but "weak" in the case of photos illustrating a document or
publication.

> When you start talking about making slideshows and animations, to me
> it starts sounding a lot like a case that people do not expect a weak
> copyleft to cover. 

In this case the "weak copyleft" analogy breaks. Remember, we are only using
it as an analogy, but it's not really a weak copyleft license. The real
point of discussion here is what constitutes a derivative work.

The question is whether a newspaper carrying a CC-by-sa photograph is a
derivative work of it (I think it is not, or rather that it should not be,
IANAL etc.) or a slideshow of a series of CC-by-sa photographs is a
derivative work of them (I think yes). Of course, this is something that the
applicable law may have something to say about, maybe different things in
different jurisdictions.

> In any case you could always use the more restrictive license and
> distribute an additional permission to allow the extra uses which you
> wish to allow.  But it's better for the world if you use the most
> standardized licensing possible.

This is true. That's why I think either formalising the meaning of by-sa to
be "strong copyleft", or agreeing that it's "weak copyleft" and adding a
by-sa+ license is good.

> How big of an impact has this aspect of license behavior had for you?

The fact that by-sa was interpreted as "weak copyleft" oin the case of pghot
illustrations means that some of my photographs are being used to illustrate
articles in wikipedia right now, before GFDL and CC-by-sa are compatible.
Several students have written to me saying they have used my photos for
their classwork. I think using by-sa content in this way is good for
remixers and audience of such projects, even commercial concerns with
non-free licensing of their own content.

In any case, the biggest danger I see here is having two different
interpretations of the same license.

So I support a discussion that clarifies what the by-sa license means
according to the law (and preferably if it's the same in all jurisdictions),
not what individual licensors mean to say. I would would even support a
contrary interpretation to my current one if that came to be the consensus.
Then I would try to find a way to implement this "weak copyleft" analogy,
maybe by publishing my photos under by-sa with added permissions). Of
course, a separate by-sa+ license as proposed by Erik would also do the trick.

Javier Candeira