Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

My friend Ben recently had a BY-SA photo picked up from his
Flickr and
included in the Metro.  (See the email below.)  Must that
entire issue
of the Metro also be BY-SA to comply with the BY-SA
agreement on Ben's
photo?

It is encouraging to see that they printed "CC BY
SA" next to Ben's
name in the credit.  You can see it along the top right edge
of the
larger photo in this scan:
http
://www.flickr.com/photos/bensisto/447190988/

Curious,
Kevin Driscoll

-- 
http://kevindriscoll.info/


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benjamin Sisto <ben.sistogmail.com>
Date: Apr 5, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Metro ran a photo I took - gave CC BY SA cred!
To: Kevin Driscoll <driscollkevingmail.com>


I've asked every paper who's used a photo of mine to give
the proper
CC BY SA credit - and I think the Metro is the first. Stoked
to see it
in a major publication! It's an article on Twisted Village /
Major
Stars - the photo is from a Charlie's Kitchen show
http
://www.flickr.com/photos/bensisto/447190988/

-- 
Cheers,
Benjamim Sisto
617-784-6115
ben.sistogmail.com
benmilkywayjp.com
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Thu, 2007-05-04 at 17:51 -0400, Elizabeth Stark wrote:
> So they used it correctly.

I don't think so. They're supposed to give the URL of the
license (or
the full text of the license), and they only added the
cryptic "(CC)
BY-SA".

They're also supposed to give the title of the photo and
information on
any changes they made.

-Evan


____________________________________________________________
____________
Evan Prodromou <evanprodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.nam
e/

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

why isn't "syncing" a photo a derivative work?

On 4/6/07, Fred Benenson <fred.benensongmail.com> wrote:
> >From another BY-SA photographer whose work
frequently gets used in print
> media (did you get your issue of Travel Girl this
month?),
>   Yes, my understanding is that unless the work is a
"derivative", then the
> SA doesn't haven't be invoked. While syncing music to a
video counts as
> creating a derivative, for better or for worse, syncing
photos to text
> doesn't.
>
>
> F
>
>
> On 4/5/07, Elizabeth Stark <estarklaw.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Nope. Under the license, it only applies to the
photo itself in the
> context of a newspaper. So they used it correctly.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/5/07, Kevin Driscoll < driscollkevingmail.com> wrote:
> > > My friend Ben recently had a BY-SA photo
picked up from his Flickr and
> > > included in the Metro.  (See the email
below.)  Must that entire issue
> > > of the Metro also be BY-SA to comply with the
BY-SA agreement on Ben's
> > > photo?
> > >
> > > It is encouraging to see that they printed
"CC BY SA" next to Ben's
> > > name in the credit.  You can see it along the
top right edge of the
> > > larger photo in this scan:
> > > http
://www.flickr.com/photos/bensisto/447190988/
> > >
> > > Curious,
> > > Kevin Driscoll
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://kevindriscoll.info/

> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Benjamin Sisto <ben.sistogmail.com
>
> > > Date: Apr 5, 2007 10:02 AM
> > > Subject: Metro ran a photo I took - gave CC
BY SA cred!
> > > To: Kevin Driscoll < driscollkevingmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > I've asked every paper who's used a photo of
mine to give the proper
> > > CC BY SA credit - and I think the Metro is
the first. Stoked to see it
> > > in a major publication! It's an article on
Twisted Village / Major
> > > Stars - the photo is from a Charlie's Kitchen
show
> > > http
://www.flickr.com/photos/bensisto/447190988/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Benjamim Sisto
> > > 617-784-6115
> > > ben.sistogmail.com
> > > benmilkywayjp.com
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > cc-community mailing list
> > > cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> The content of this email message is licensed under a
Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights
Reserved.
>  http:/
/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

>
>
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

<quote who="Elizabeth Stark" date="Thu,
Apr 05, 2007 at 05:51:06PM -0400">
> Nope. Under the license, it only applies to the photo
itself in the context
> of a newspaper. So they used it correctly.

CC seems to have a taken a position that the license
basically stops at
the edge of a photograph. Basically, this means that if you
don't modify
the content of a photograph, you can basically do what you
want with it
under an an SA license (of course, Evan's comments, and a
few things he
didn't say, still need to be kept in mind).

This is one reason a number of photographs who upload to
Wikimedia
Commons prefer the GFDL and its related to the reason why
Larry Lessig
has analogizing NC clauses and copyleft for software --
although I
personally disagree with Lessig's argument in this respect.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
makoatdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

I am not sure I see how the GFDL solves any perceived
problem that BY- 
SA creates. The GFDL, like every copyleft license I know of,
applies  
its obligation to license beyond the original work only if
there is a  
"modification." It, more over, explicitly permits
items to be mixed  
without the copyleft component being applied to the other
works. A  
photographer concerned that the copyleft rules of the BY-SA
don't  
obligate enough won't get additional obligations from the
GFDL.

This is indeed why, e.g., Erik, is thinking about a clever 

modification to the BY-SA scope to apply the obligation
beyond  
derivatives. But until such modifications are added, either
to the CC  
licenses or the GFDL, copyleft licenses will raise this
important  
issue for photographers, and other authors too.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

> <quote who="Elizabeth Stark"
date="Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:51:06PM  
> -0400">
>> Nope. Under the license, it only applies to the
photo itself in  
>> the context
>> of a newspaper. So they used it correctly.
>
> CC seems to have a taken a position that the license
basically  
> stops at
> the edge of a photograph. Basically, this means that if
you don't  
> modify
> the content of a photograph, you can basically do what
you want  
> with it
> under an an SA license (of course, Evan's comments, and
a few  
> things he
> didn't say, still need to be kept in mind).
>
> This is one reason a number of photographs who upload
to Wikimedia
> Commons prefer the GFDL and its related to the reason
why Larry Lessig
> has analogizing NC clauses and copyleft for software --
although I
> personally disagree with Lessig's argument in this
respect.
>
> Regards,
> Mako
>
>
> -- 
> Benjamin Mako Hill
> makoatdot.cc
> http://mako.cc/
>
> Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in
so
> far as society is free to use the results. --RMS
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community




______________

Lawrence Lessig
American Academy in Berlin
Am Sandwerder 17/19
Berlin D-14109

office: +4930/804 83 301
home: +4930/804 83 203
cell: +49/1515 907 6197
fax: +4930/804 83 222
lessigpobox.com

Assistant: a2lessigpobox.com


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Friday 13 April 2007 01:37 pm, Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> I am not sure I see how the GFDL solves any perceived
problem that BY-
> SA creates. The GFDL, like every copyleft license I
know of, applies
> its obligation to license beyond the original work only
if there is a
> "modification." It, more over, explicitly
permits items to be mixed
> without the copyleft component being applied to the
other works. A
> photographer concerned that the copyleft rules of the
BY-SA don't
> obligate enough won't get additional obligations from
the GFDL.
>
> This is indeed why, e.g., Erik, is thinking about a
clever
> modification to the BY-SA scope to apply the obligation
beyond
> derivatives. But until such modifications are added,
either to the CC
> licenses or the GFDL, copyleft licenses will raise this
important
> issue for photographers, and other authors too.

Would you care to comment on my thoughts on a way to deal
with this as posted 
here:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-comm
unity/2007-April/001702.html

Also, if something like this could work, could the sync
rights move over to 
such a scheme or could we at least have a more narrowly
defined set of 
circumstances where sync rights are needed?

all the best,

drew

>
> On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > <quote who="Elizabeth Stark"
date="Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:51:06PM
> > -0400">
> >
> >> Nope. Under the license, it only applies to
the photo itself in
> >> the context
> >> of a newspaper. So they used it correctly.
> >
> > CC seems to have a taken a position that the
license basically
> > stops at
> > the edge of a photograph. Basically, this means
that if you don't
> > modify
> > the content of a photograph, you can basically do
what you want
> > with it
> > under an an SA license (of course, Evan's
comments, and a few
> > things he
> > didn't say, still need to be kept in mind).
> >
> > This is one reason a number of photographs who
upload to Wikimedia
> > Commons prefer the GFDL and its related to the
reason why Larry Lessig
> > has analogizing NC clauses and copyleft for
software -- although I
> > personally disagree with Lessig's argument in this
respect.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mako
> >
> >
> > --
> > Benjamin Mako Hill
> > makoatdot.cc
> > http://mako.cc/
> >
> > Creativity can be a social contribution, but only
in so
> > far as society is free to use the results. --RMS
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

>
> ______________
>
> Lawrence Lessig
> American Academy in Berlin
> Am Sandwerder 17/19
> Berlin D-14109
>
> office: +4930/804 83 301
> home: +4930/804 83 203
> cell: +49/1515 907 6197
> fax: +4930/804 83 222
> lessigpobox.com
>
> Assistant: a2lessigpobox.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community


-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Friday 20 April 2007 03:15 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > Although I understand the motivation to extend the
copyleft to
> > containing works, it presents a number of nasty
consequences which I
> > believe have to be avoided if you want it to work
(here's a few I can
> > think of right off):
>
> Certainly the side effects would need thinking through
very thoroughly
> and may be worse than just accepting the loss.
>
> Fair Use would also need to be strongly defined for
images, for example
> works of criticism should be able to use images as
illustrations under
> Fair Use without having to be copylefted themselves.
This is important
> for free speech.
>
> > 1) "License the Universe"
> >
> > Any reasonable use of a work means it is
"contained" in something else
> > whose license you are not able to, or should not
attempt, to control.
>
> "Contained" is not a legal term AFAIK and as
you are using it here seems
> to cover both use and distribution (in GPL-2 terms).
>
> > For example, an HTML page "contains" an
image.
>
> The code for an HTML page does not contain an image.
The rendering of an
> HTML page will create an image that combines the text
of the html with
> the pixels of the image in a single unit. This is use.
>
> > A website "contains" an HTML page.
>
> This is borderline. There is nothing in the site that
causes a single
> unit to be rendered incorporating all of its
"contained" units, but some
> sites that is a single work (eg an encyclopaedia).
>
> CDs of music are an interesting case. People sometimes
don't seem to
> expect BY-SA music to be distributable alongside
non-free work.
>
> > The Internet "contains" the website.
>
> Again no single usable unit is ever created that
includes all the
> "contained" units. This is distribution.
>
> > Given that this can clearly be taken
> > to unreasonable extremes, where should the line be
drawn?  I think it's
> > a very good idea for the line to be drawn by
license stewards like CC
> > instead of leaving it up to lawsuits.
>
> The line should be drawn where the existing social
contract of use
> determines that it should be drawn, and/or where it is
unreasonable.
>
> > We are saved to a degree by the limited scope of
existing copyleft
> > terms. They allow any license (including other
free licenses) to be
> > applied to "mere containers" and to
siblings within the same container,
> > so they prevent lock-ups due to license
incompatibility.
>
> This does not ensure that the users of the "mere
container" have the
> same freedom as the creator of the "mere
container". Where its creator
> has used free work to achieve the sum effect of a
single rendered unit
> this is a loss of freedom.
>
> > Thus, if I have an HTML page with GFDL, GPL, By,
and By-SA images in it
> > (not to mention "verbatim use only",
"By-NC-ND", or "fair use" images),
> > then -- if a container-binding copyleft is applied
to any of the above
> > "free" licenses -- the licensing is
locked up and I cannot publish.
>
> Does the page "use" the images? If so the
freedom that the creator of
> the page enjoys should not be a privilege that they can
deny others.
>
> > As things stand we have a situation with some
admitted faults -- it may
> > be a little *too* free. But trying to sew up the
loopholes is going to
> > cause problems, and I'm not convinced that the
cure wouldn't be worse
> > than the disease.
>
> At the moment we have a situation where what some
people regard as an
> obvious case of use (the creation of a single image
consisting of text
> and photo in the memory partition of a web browser or a
RIP ) is not
> tackled.
>
> There is a precedent within the licenses for for
tackling this as an
> exception rather than trying to create a general
principle from it: the
> musical synchronization clause for using music in
films. So using
> photographs as illustrations could be added as another
similar clause.
>
> Or we could recognize that the existence of two such
exceptions
> indicates a more general principle and try to codify
it, using them as
> examples.
>
> Or we could accept that this is more problematic than
the musical case
> and simply explain the licenses better to
photographers.

For all of this contains, mere aggregation, use and the
like, what is wrong 
with the concept I put forth which is "if a copyright
arises" - that is, 
copyright law may already have the answer. If the work under
the CC SA 
license is used in a work where a new copyright comes into
being, that is 
what we should concern ourselves with. If no new copyright
comes into 
existence, it is not a problem.

Is this not a reasonable way to look at it? Strenghts?
Weaknesses?
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:

> For all of this contains, mere aggregation, use and the
like, what is wrong
> with the concept I put forth which is "if a
copyright arises" - that is,
> copyright law may already have the answer. If the work
under the CC SA
> license is used in a work where a new copyright comes
into being, that is
> what we should concern ourselves with. If no new
copyright comes into
> existence, it is not a problem.
>
> Is this not a reasonable way to look at it? Strenghts?
Weaknesses?

I think that is how it currently works. A derivative work is
a work  
that would attract its own copyright. So having derivation
as the  
copyleft trigger fits copyright law perfectly.

There seem to be two major cases where this does not fit
people's  
expectations: the use of a piece of music in a film
soundtrack and the  
use of a photograph as a magazine illustration. The former
has been  
worked into the CC licenses as a special case where copyleft
is  
triggered by something other than derivation, the latter has
not.

So I don't think that we can say that the licenses should
only concern  
themselves with how copyright law works; there are already
examples of  
where they do not do this (NC is another).

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community