Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Sarah Pearson <sarah AT creativecommons.org> 
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So the part about "a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not
> be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License" is
> meaningless?

Specifically, under US law, isn't a compilation both a Collective Work
(by the definition of "compilation") and a Derivative Work (since it,
under the same definition, "constitutes an original work of
authorship")?

But for the purposes of CC-BY-SA, a Derivative Work does not include a
Collective Work, so presumably a compilation would be a Collective
Work, and not a Derivative Work (even though it "constitutes an
original work of authorship".