Development of Creative Commons licenses

[<zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:36:47 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide
<arne_bab AT web.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 22. April 2012, 14:58:40 schrieb zotz AT 100jamz.com:
>> > That depends on whether the text is actually a creative derivative of the
>> > images.
>>
>> Well, in my proposed solution to this problem for 4.x BY-SA it would
>> not depend on anything being a creative derivative of anything else. It
>> would just depend on whether the "container" was a copyrighted work or
>> not.
> 
> And that’s exactly the definition of a creative derivative: If it is
> creative,
> it gets copyright protection. If not, not.

Huh? From gplv3: (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html)

"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used
to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond
what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an
aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the
aggregate."

This part is not talking about a derivative but an aggregate. It seems
it is only called an aggregate if it is a creative compilation (not a
mere compilation?) but that the copyright on the aggregate is not used
to restrict / limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's
users beyond what the individual works permit.

Some maintain that this would allow a copyrighted compilation of GPL
works (and BY-SA works if BY-SA were to adopt this language?) with ARR
works, BY-NC works, etc. and it would be an aggregate according to this
so long as one did not use the copyright on the compilation to limit the
users at all and perhaps we could even limit them some and still be an
aggregate.

*If* that is indeed so, that is not what I want for BY-SA 4.x - I want
only Free siblings to be allowed in the BY-SA version of an aggregate.

So, can someone with GPL expertise / an FSF legal type comment of the
legality of a GPL / ARR aggregate?
> 
> And only if it gets copyright protection, it can restrict the
> contained works.
> And then the copyleft protetion of the GPL kicks in.
> 
>> > “A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
> works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
> and which
> are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a 
> volume 
> of a storage or distribution medium”
> …
>> > So the only way to create an unfree book which uses your GPL
>> > photographs would
>> > be to create a bad book. Like a documentation of Mauna Loa using random
>> > images from Seattle and Berlin.
>>
>> But would that book get a copyright of its own?
> 
> I doubt that. In Germany we would say „Schöpfungshöhe nicht erreicht“.
> 
> That need not apply to the text, though. It would be possible to use unfree 
> text and put unrelated free images around it. But it would be very hard to 
> prove that these images are really unrelated to the text.
> 
> If I were a book creator I would not risk that legal uncertainty. It would 
> just need one lawyer who successfully sues you to put all my sales on hold 
> - 
> and make me liable for commercial copyright infringement. You know what 
> penalties that brings nowadays…
> 
> Best wishes,
> Arne

all the best,

drew
> 
> PS: I am no lawyer. All views expressed here are my understanding.

I am not a lawyer either but I am trying to come to grips with this
stuff as best as I can.