Re: multiple licenses of same image

I'm not sure that is true.  Almost everything is
"mechanical" at some
level.  Couldn't you argue that there is some creativity in
the
selection of whether/how to modify, even if the modification
process
itself is quite algorithmic.?  I would think that
interpolation
algorithms would be a prime candidate for this.  Although
I'm not up
to date on the creativity threshold applied by courts these
days, I
had thought it was quite low.

dp

On 1/16/07, Peter Brink <peter.brinkbrinkdata.se> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 14:03 +0100, Peter Brink
wrote:
> >>> A derivative work must be the result of a
_creative act_ originating
> >>> from a human being. If a machine down- or
upsamples a work there is no
> >>> creative act involved, it's a just a
mechanical transformation. A
> >>> "thumbnail" is therefore a copy
and not a derivative work.
>  >
> >> There is no such thing as
"upsampling" so this logic cannot apply to
> >> versions of a work at higher resolution than
offered.
>
> If you call it upsampling, downsampling or sidesampling
or whatever
> doesn't matter. A "work" must be the result
of a creative act - the same
> goes for derivative works. A mechanical transformation
is in itself not
> a creative act, the result of such a transformation is
a copy and not a
> derivative work. If I scan a picture and make two
versions available,
> one in low resolution and one in high resolution, those
two images are
> _copies_ of the _same work_.
>
> /Peter Brink
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses