Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 05 October 2012 13:45:21 Dj Everette wrote:
> The software world may seem to be a good reference standard. Howevrr in my
> opinion the global media & entertainment industry standards regarding
> copyright

1. They are developed for a different purpose.

> are fully industrialized

2. This very industrialization is a part of the problem to be solved. It 
gives 
the industrialists and those with the wealth to operate on industrial scales 
a decided advantage over the lone creators.

> and vetted

3. Vetted for the wrong purposes. Take for instance my recent questions 
concerning frequent total lack of attribution in the day to day operations of 
a broadcast radio station. I am not implying anything majorly sinister here 
(well beyond copyright in general) as they pay for their use of the songs and 
it would seem the license they get does not require attribution so they give 
it when it suits the flow of the program and leave it out for similar 
reasons.

> and should be the guiding   
> principles. Seems like trying to develop the wheel  again.

Different jobs, different tools. However, if the developed tools actually do 
work for the alternate purposes, fine, but surely this needs to be examined 
and concluded, not merely stipulated.

all the best,

drew
>
> On Oct 5, 2012 11:24 AM, "Luis Villa" <luis AT tieguy.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 AT gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On 29/09/12 14:02, Kat Walsh wrote:
> > >> Identifying changes to the work:
> > >>
> > >> This one does not appear in 4.0d2--it is a new suggestion in the
> > >> current internal draft, and something we'd like to hear community
> > >> opinion on: "if You Share Adapted Material, You must indicate the
> > >> Licensed Material was used and describe the changes made." (This would
> > >> also be "reasonable to the medium, means, and context", as the other
> > >> attribution information would be.)
> > >>
> > >> This appears in several other free licenses, and helps distinguish the
> > >> contributions of each authors or group of authors. For example, a
> > >> translation might bear the note "translated into Spanish by X".
> > >> However, we also see it potentially presents problems in complying.
> > >>
> > >> There are a few specific questions we'd really like to hear answers
> > >> to:
> > >>
> > >> 1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
> > >> extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?
> > >> 2. What kind of description should be required: should a verbal
> > >> description be required, or is the ability to see and compare the
> > >> changes enough?
> > >
> > > I don't see this as being practical. If I'm working on remixing an
> > > artistic work am I expected to record every change I make? eg. changed
> > > colour levels, applied Gaussian blur, etc.
> > >
> > > That would become impractical, let along being ambiguous in the actual
> > > requirement ie. which level of detail describing changes is enough for
> > > compliance: "edited the original image", "applied Gaussian blur",
> > > "applied Gaussian blur with settings of omega=0.246?
> >
> > I'd add that in practice these requirements are completely ignored in
> > the wild in the software world, even when they are very mild. e.g.,
> > Apache and GPL only require notice that the material has been changed,
> > rather than any information about the nature of the change, and yet
> > that is only rarely complied with.
> >
> > Luis