Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification for Non-Derivative License: grayscale from color not a derivative work

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sarah Pearson <sarah AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification for Non-Derivative License: grayscale from color not a derivative work
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:11:15 -0800

The way the licenses currently work, the question of what constitutes a derivative/adaptation is determined by reference to local law. This is the case for purposes of BY-SA and BY-ND. Currently, the only exception is for synching, which is explicitly deemed an adaptation for purposes of the license.

In other words, the determination of whether colorization (or the reverse) is allowed for a BY-ND work has to be answered by reference to applicable law. Different jurisdictions have different standards for copyrightability, so the answer likely varies depending on where the work is being used.

Of course, we can always discuss the merits of carving out a new exception as we have done for synching. Just wanted to add that clarification.

best,
Sarah

Sarah Hinchliff Pearson, Senior Counsel
Creative Commons
444 Castro Street, Suite 900
Mountain View, California 94041
phone: +1 650-294-4732 (ext. 493)
skype: sarah-h-pearson
email: sarah AT creativecommons.org

Please donate to the CC Annual Campaign, going on now! https://creativecommons.net/donate
______________________________

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice.



On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com> wrote:
> permission, is less likely to be considered a derivative work (if a
standard algorithm is used, it seems to me there would be no added
creativity, therefore it would be a copy, not a derivative work).

I fully agree on the less likely, and I believe a clarification statement in the license would not be a change of license. My request to make this explicit is not meant to deal with an intricate legal situation but to avoid the of discussions whether it is or is not allowed.

Gregor

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page