Re: multiple licenses of same image

On Friday 26 January 2007 03:13 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
>  > So, taking this all into consideration, does this
mean you disagree
>  > with Mia? Or do you agree with her and I am too
dim or too ignorant at
>  > this point to see it?
>
> You are neither dim nor ignorant.
>
> Mia’s position seems to be that since the license is
non-exclusive, the
> implication (and intention of the license) must be that
the terms of the
> license only applies to such copies that includes an
explicit license
> statement. 

I don't follow this logic. I can offer my work as BY-SA and
if someone does 
not want to deal with the SA aspects, I can offer them a
different license on 
terms to be agreed upon. This would be a case of non
exclusive licenses on 
the work that would not force us to hold the position that
the license is 
only for copies of the work to which the BY-SA license is
attached or that 
come from a copy to which the BY-SA license is attached.

I am not saying that I want Mia to be wrong. I think her
being right would do 
a lot to open business opportunities for me. I just wonder
why we need to 
leave the ambiguity in the license by speaking of the work
rather than 
mentioning the instance of the work and all works stemming
from that 
instance.

> I can understand how she comes to this conclusion. On
the 
> other hand the language of the license explicitly
states that the terms
> of the license apply to the work as such and the legal
scope of
> protection afforded to a work includes all its copies.

>
> In the end it becomes a matter of interpretation. I
think that most
> civil law courts would, mainly because of the (largely
non-codified)
> rule that an author never yields more rights than he
has explicitly
> agreed to, come to the conclusion that since the author
has reserved the
> right to offer other copies of the work under other
terms (including
> ARR), it’s up to the licensee to prove that he has had
the right to use
> the work in the way he has done. If the licensee cannot
prove that the
> copy he has been using includes an explicit license
statement then he
> has been infringing the author’s copyright. The burden
of proof thus
> lies on the licensee. 
>
> The end result is the same as Mia's – but not of
(exactly) the same
> reason. I'm aware of that I seemed to reach a different
conclusion a
> week or two ago, but I was a wee bit to quick with my
conclusions at
> that point.
>
>
> /Peter Brink
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

drew Roberts skrev:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 03:13 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
>> drew Roberts skrev:
>>  > So, taking this all into consideration, does
this mean you disagree
>>  > with Mia? Or do you agree with her and I am
too dim or too ignorant at
>>  > this point to see it?
>>
>> You are neither dim nor ignorant.
>>
>> Mia’s position seems to be that since the license
is non-exclusive, the
>> implication (and intention of the license) must be
that the terms of the
>> license only applies to such copies that includes
an explicit license
>> statement. 
> 
> I don't follow this logic. I can offer my work as BY-SA
and if someone does 
> not want to deal with the SA aspects, I can offer them
a different license on 
> terms to be agreed upon. This would be a case of non
exclusive licenses on 
> the work that would not force us to hold the position
that the license is 
> only for copies of the work to which the BY-SA license
is attached or that 
> come from a copy to which the BY-SA license is
attached.

If you issue a non-exclusive license what you are offering
are in effect 
  the right to use specific copies of your work. If you
offer three 
different versions of the same work under three different
licenses: A -> 
CC-BY-ND, B -> CC-BY-SA and C -> GFDL. Then that must
reasonably mean 
that version A could only be used under the terms of
CC-BY-ND and not 
CC-BY-SA. If you would have had tripple-licensed the work,
that is 
included three sets of license terms, then the licensee
would have had 
been able to choose which one of the three licenses to use.

If you had offered the work under an _exclusive license_
then you would 
have license the work as such (minus any possible moral
rights) 
including all modifications and versions.


/Peter Brink






_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses