Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

Quoting "Benj. Mako Hill" <makoatdot.cc>:

> 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).

CC have limited SA's copyleft to derivative works. This is a
 
reasonable position but doesn't always meets people's
expectations or  
model the existing "social contract" for use of
different kinds of work.

> This is one reason a number of photographs who upload
to Wikimedia
> Commons prefer the GFDL

The GFDL seems to define both texts and images as
"documents" and  
replace the concept of derivation with the concepts of
modification  
and combination. The reason that photographs would work as
expected  
under the GFDL would be because it defines a modified
version as:

"... any work containing the Document or a portion of
it, either  
copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated
into another  
language."

But this crucially assumes that an article illustrated by a
photo  
constitutes a "work". From the discussion of using
photography for  
illustration I'm not sure that it does. If it doesn't, it
might be the  
case that you can just use the photograph under the GFDL's
unmodified  
copying permission, which is how you can use a photo as an 

illustration under BY_SA.

IANAL, TINLA.

> 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.

Yes. I'm very glad that Lessig is talking about this and
urging a  
broader discussion though.

- Rob.

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

My take on how a modified BY-SA could work follows...


On Friday 13 April 2007 10:02 am, robrobmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting "Benj. Mako Hill" <makoatdot.cc>:
> > 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).
>
> CC have limited SA's copyleft to derivative works. This
is a
> reasonable position but doesn't always meets people's
expectations or
> model the existing "social contract" for use
of different kinds of work.

It is reasonable, but it is not the only reasonable way to
do SA.
>
> > This is one reason a number of photographs who
upload to Wikimedia
> > Commons prefer the GFDL
>
> The GFDL seems to define both texts and images as
"documents" and
> replace the concept of derivation with the concepts of
modification
> and combination. The reason that photographs would work
as expected
> under the GFDL would be because it defines a modified
version as:
>
> "... any work containing the Document or a portion
of it, either
> copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or
translated into another
> language."
>
> But this crucially assumes that an article illustrated
by a photo
> constitutes a "work". From the discussion of
using photography for
> illustration I'm not sure that it does. If it doesn't,
it might be the
> case that you can just use the photograph under the
GFDL's unmodified
> copying permission, which is how you can use a photo as
an
> illustration under BY_SA.
>
> IANAL, TINLA.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes. I'm very glad that Lessig is talking about this
and urging a
> broader discussion though.

OK,

here goes (rough thoughts so far)

A modified BY-SA could work along these lines...

If you make a derivative of the work, you must put BY-SA on
the derivative.

If you use the work in another work where a copyright
arises, the work getting 
the copyright must be BY-SA and any works also used in the
larger work must 
be compatible with BY-SA for use in collections and the
like.

This would not attempt to force a BY-SA license on works
used alongside a 
BY-SA work in a collection, but it would require the
collection as a whole to 
be BY-SA and it would limit the licenses on works used in
the collection to 
ones which carry a "compatible for collections"
license.

As a first cut on "compatible for collections"
licneses, they would need to be 
Free.

Perhaps the over all work would only need to carry such a
license and not 
BY-SA itself. I don't know how copyrights work on
collections. If so, then 
since the works used alongside the BY-SA work and the
overall work are not 
derivatives (or would not necessarily be?) actual
derivatives of the BY-SA 
work, they could be licensed in other ways when not in the
presence of hte 
BY-SA work.

In cases where no copyright would arise from putting the
BY-SA work together 
with other works, none of this would apply.

First, have I been clear in the above?

Second, have I failed to cover some inportant point(s)?

Third, benefits of such an approach over the current BY-SA?

Fourth, costs of such an approach over the current BY-SA?

Fifth, overall, would you prefer such an approach to the
current BY-SA 
approach?
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

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

<quote who="robrobmyers.org" date="Fri, Apr 13,
2007 at 03:02:50PM +0100">
> The GFDL seems to define both texts and images as
"documents" and  
> replace the concept of derivation with the concepts of
modification  
> and combination. The reason that photographs would work
as expected  
> under the GFDL would be because it defines a modified
version as:
> 
> "... any work containing the Document or a portion
of it, either  
> copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or
translated into another  
> language."
> 
> But this crucially assumes that an article illustrated
by a photo  
> constitutes a "work". From the discussion of
using photography for  
> illustration I'm not sure that it does. If it doesn't,
it might be the  
> case that you can just use the photograph under the
GFDL's unmodified  
> copying permission, which is how you can use a photo as
an  
> illustration under BY_SA.

AIUI, the FSF seems to have taken the position that it does.
You're free
to disagree and take some one to court but you're going to
have argue
against the GFDL authors about what they meant (despite the
fact that
its been clarified in public).

Apologies I'm confusing this with something else. I don't
recall the
details.

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

On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

> <quote who="robrobmyers.org"
date="Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:02:50PM  
> +0100">
>> The GFDL seems to define both texts and images as
"documents" and
>> replace the concept of derivation with the concepts
of modification
>> and combination. The reason that photographs would
work as expected
>> under the GFDL would be because it defines a
modified version as:
>>
>> "... any work containing the Document or a
portion of it, either
>> copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or
translated into another
>> language."
>>
>> But this crucially assumes that an article
illustrated by a photo
>> constitutes a "work". From the discussion
of using photography for
>> illustration I'm not sure that it does. If it
doesn't, it might be  
>> the
>> case that you can just use the photograph under the
GFDL's unmodified
>> copying permission, which is how you can use a
photo as an
>> illustration under BY_SA.
>
> AIUI, the FSF seems to have taken the position that it
does. You're  
> free
> to disagree and take some one to court but you're going
to have argue
> against the GFDL authors about what they meant (despite
the fact that
> its been clarified in public).
>

This has not been FSF's policy position.


> Apologies I'm confusing this with something else. I
don't recall the
> details.
>
> 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