Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:23:57 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > Well, I know for me, if we don't make a reasonable stab at making the
> > copyleft aspects of BY-SA stronger this round, I am thinking seriously of
> > adopting BY-NC-SA for my photos and such with an additional permission to
> > use the work for commercial purposes so long as the resulting work also
> > grants the same commercial waiver. I would hate to do this but... We
> > shall see.
>
> I've never felt that the actual language of the license was especially
> deficient in this regard— certainly both the common practices and the
> guidance are not good.
>
> Are you more concerned about the fine boundary where e.g. the inclusion
> of a photo being mere aggregation or an adaptation is disputable, or are
> you more concerned about the fact that the copyleft is ignored even where
> this question does not exist?

I am concerned that there are many ways to use my BY-SA licensed, copyrighted 
photos and images in other copyrighted works without those copyrighted works 
needing to be licensed BY-SA in turn. In other words, despite the Share Alike 
in the license, no Share Alike happens.
>
> Could your concern be addressed by adding or reworking the  "will be
> considered an Adaptation" (cc-by-sa-3.0 language) text?

I have made the proposal for fixing this several times over the years using 
different language at times to try and be clearer. Search for zotz and 
copyleft in the archives.
>
> If your concern is, in fact, about the boundary between aggregation and
> adaptation— then fixing it with the NC + permissions may be messy too.

In some very important ways, yes, but in another way, not at all. I would 
hate 
to do it, but I am wanting to release more photos in the future and if it is 
the best option available...

> Certainly,  though of us who are strongly pro-copyleft

I count myself in that number.

> would be sending 
> a very mixed message by using NC— a very unfortunately restrictive
> license which is already overused by people who pick without good
> information —in any way.

I agree. That is why I want to see this issue settled in a satisfactory way 
in 
this round of license updates.
>
> As a photographer myself— it's worth pointing out that the vast majority
> of the commercial use of photography is for illustrating other copyrighted
> works.  If a copyleft license is not able to provide _some_ incentive
> for the creators of these derivative works to also freely license their
> works then the copyleft provides little value at all.

And hence, BY-SA is of very little value for photographers, painters, and 
such.
>
> After handling hundreds of licensing requests (for textbooks, advertising,
> decorations, etc) for my photographs over the years, only last week did
> I receive a request for licensing substantial modifications of the work
> rather than the more customary illustrative uses, and a bit ironically: I
> felt the usage so thoroughly transformation that I released it with no
> conditions at all.

Are you getting such requests for BY-SA license photos?

all the best,

drew