drew Roberts wrote:
> Ah, nope, I don't think that fully covers the
situation. While a derivative
> work is a work that would attract its own copyright, it
is not the only works
> that might incorporate or contain a BY-SA work and not
be a derivative.
>
> Have you missed the talk on collections? (Collective
works or whatever the
> correct terminology is.)
>
> A collective work canget a copyright on the collection.
Right? Wrong?
I think so but people don't seem to always assert it. Does
the work get
this automatically? How does it interact with the underlying
copyright?
I can see the case that the collective work couldn't exist
without the
underlying CC-licensed work so the condition for being
allowed to claim
a collective copyright that covers the CC-licensed work is
that the
collective work must be CC-licensed. I'm just very wary of
it.
> Is a newspaper on the whole copyrighted? Or only the
individual articles? Is a
> magazine copyrighted?
As a whole it is copyrighted by the publisher, there is
usually a notice
on the contents page. Writers and illustrators and editors
get
attribution. I must admit I haven't thought about what kind
of copyright
this is. Photos from agencies must have their own copyright
originally
and be licensed.
> The problem is that we only seek to control derivatives
and we could also
> control copying and distribution where needed.
Stallman explicitly excluded collective works when drafting
the GPL.
This was a tactical measure at least in part I believe, as
no
Freeware/Shareware CD would have accepted those terms.
It is also important to avoid anything that could be
regarded as coercion.
> Or am I totally off base.
No, I'm just very wary of collective copyright. Part of this
is ethical,
part of this is due to my not having the best understanding
of it. :-/
> I agree with that, but if we can do it using copyright
law itself, might not
> that be better? Looking at this last paragraph, I think
you might not fully
> get what Iam trying to say.
I understand the collective copyright argument but I think
unless it is
used very precisely to enforce a particular part of a
"social contract"
it could be seen as coercive and harm distribution without
increasing or
protecting copyleft works.
I would be interested to see a study of how collective work
copyrights
could interact with alternative copyright licenses though.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|