On Tuesday 16 January 2007 06:34 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 00:23 +0100, Peter Brink 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_.
>
> I think you missed my point. It is impossible to
recreate a high
> quality/bitrate/resolution work from a low
quality/bitrate/resolution
> work, mechanically or otherwise. To do so would be
more than creative,
> it would be godlike.
>
> So how could offering a low quality version of a work
under a license
> imply that a high quality version is also offered given
there is no
> transformation, mechanical or otherwise, that can go
from the version
> offered to the (higher quality) version not offered?
You get a low quality version under the license, say for
free. You buy a high
quality version (the low quality version is the result of
down sampling, the
high quality is the original) under a different license.
That is how you could come to be in posession of two
versions under two
different licenses. Any problems so far?
Now, people taking the position under discussion point out
that the license is
a license to the work.
They maintian that down sampling does not produce a new work
according to
copyright law, just a copy of the original work.
The argument then goes, since you have a license to the
"work" you have that
license to the work no matter which copy it is. No matter
that you got one
copy under a different license originally.
Not that you agree or disagree, but do you understand the
argument so far?
If so, would you care to respond from here?
>
> Just a defender of entropy (as if it needs defense!),
not a lawyer.
>
> Mike
all the best,
drew
--
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|