Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 21 January 2012 16:01:41 Ben Finney wrote:
> drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> writes:
> > I make a stone sculpture of a god and put it in a public park with a
> > BY-SA license.

Note: that should have been sculpture of a dog there...
>
> What copy are recipients receiving? To what does the license apply? That
> question needs to be answered before it makes sense to talk about
> putting a copyright license on a stone statue.

No that question does not need to be answered. The law has already decided 
that the statue is automatically a copyrighted work and so my putting a Free 
and copyleft license on it is entirely reasonable in that light alone.
>
> > John comes along with a block of wood and copies my stone statue in
> > wood, he puts the BY-SA license on the wooden version. He sells the
> > wooden version to you. What is the source?
>
> The license becomes interesting only when copyright applies. I don't
> know whether that occurs when John carves the figure in wood.

What do you base this on?
>
> To the extent that copyright applies to that act, though, I think the
> licenses would apply to the *information*, and copies of that
> information.
>
> > Jack paints the statue on canvas with oils and puts the painting under
> > the BY-SA as well. He sells the painting to Sue. What is the source?
>
> Again, I don't see how copyright is involved with this act. To know how
> the license applies, I need to understand what copyright-covered action
> is being done.
>
> Painting an image one sees in one's ocular vision doesn't strike me as
> one that copyright cares about.

See something like this:

http://www.floridapatentlawyerblog.com/2010/02/photographer-sued-over-photo-o.html
>
> > I think you are thinking only in terms of works that are or perhaps
> > were at one time in the digital realm. What about for works that have
> > never yet maid it there?
>
> Then one needs to understand exactly what is being copied, since
> copyright covers only copies of expression.

No. As I say above, one only needs to know that one's original gets an 
automatic copyright. The person making a copy or a derivative or other 
impacted works may need to know this if they do not want to put a by-sa 
license on what they do from that by-sa original.

(my take)

all the best,

drew