Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Possible way to subvert the intention of CC-BY-SA and other BY licenses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Possible way to subvert the intention of CC-BY-SA and other BY licenses
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:55:49 +0100

On 21.01.2009 02:02, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>:
>> I think the core of your argument (that CC-BY-SA by removal
>> of byline is converted to CC-SA) is wrong. A CC-SA license
>> does not exist.

> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/

Are you saying that by requesting the removal of a byline, a
CC-BY-SA 3.0 is automaticaally transformed into CC-SA 1.0?

If not, what is you point by vringing up this relic?

>> While the photo in this particular instance
>> appear without a byline, this does not in any way remove the
>> obligation, imposed by the license, that proper credit must
>> be given to the author for all other instances of use.
>>
>> What this means is that Eve must credit the author if she
>> wants to legally use a photo under a CC-BY-SA license.
>>
>> What the license clearly tells her is: 1) that this work is
>> not in the public domain; 2) that the author has used a license
>> where he or she makes credit a condition for use.
>>
>> Where Eve found it and whether or not it appeared with a
>> byline in that particular place does not matter. The
>> license is clear, and whatever scheme Eva as engineered to
>> get the byline removed in one particular instance does not
>> change the license itself.

> The problem with that line of argument is that it becomes effectively
> possible to revoke the license by demanding the removal of credit from
> anything that uses your image.

No. Repeating it doesn't make it more right than the first time
you said it. The license is never revoked. The author just
exersises a right he or she has, that is spelled out in the
license: The right to withdraw one's byline from a compilation
one finds offensive. It is simply a form of protest that the
license affords the author.

> Since no one then knows how to credit you they can't use the
> image.

True. But not knowing who to credit does not revoke the license.
It only makes it a bit harder for people who want to use the
image to use it - because they can't until they've found out
who they must credit.

But not very hard. Presuambly the author did not hand it to
the editor of the offensive publication for exclusive use.
It is probably used other places as well. A bit of seaching
may lead to a copy with a proper photo credit in a
non-offensive setting.

Since refusal to be associated with an offensive compilation is
rare, it is also newsworthy - so it is very likely that
you can search the web for a news item identifying the author.

Or if all these fail, you can simply ask the publisher or editor
of the offensive publication where it appeared to give you
the name of the author. Withdrawing one's byline from a
compilation one finds offensive is a form of protest, it is
not a gag order.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
"Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page