Re: multiple licenses of same image

On Sunday 28 January 2007 09:28 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> Terry Hancock skrev:
> > 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.
> >
> > Okay, another case:
> >
> > I write a novel as a raw text file on computer. I
sell copies of this
> > novel under an ARR "license".
> >
> > I then run the novel through an automatic filter
which removes every
> > other chapter and all remaining vowels. There is
no creative activity in
> > this process -- it's completely automated, and
takes perhaps 5-20 lines
> > of Python code to implement. I license the reduced
work online
> > under CC-By-SA.
> >
> > Do people who have downloaded that work have the
right to purchase the
> > novel, copy its text, and use it under the By-SA
terms?
> >
> > This seems implausible to me, but it is pretty
much the same as the
> > image case you describe (a lossy, but uncreative
transformation).
>
> In the case above the author has published a copy of
his work in the
> form of a printed book. Then later he makes another
copy of the work
> available for download under CC-BY-SA license. The
license only applies
> to the later copy, even though both publications are
copies of the same
> work. The author has explicitly reserved all rights to
the first
> publication and only granted additional right to the
second copy.
>
> One could also take the stance that the later
publication is a new work.
> An author is free to manipulate and modify his works as
he sees fit.
> Even if the first publication shares almost 50% of it's
content with the
> later, one may argue that the author has created a new
work. The text as
> such is a result of a creative act, that the editing
process is not,
> does not reduce the originality of the text itself.
When an author edits
> a work of his and there is a substantial difference
between the original
> and the edited version it's quite likely that a new
work has been
> created. If someone else did the same type of editing
then a new work
> (or a derivative) work would not be created because
this second person
> has not added any original content to the work.

From:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode


1. Definitions

e.	"Work" means the copyrightable work of
authorship offered under the terms 
of this License.

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, 
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright)
license to exercise 
the rights in the Work as stated below:

As much as I would like the only to the "tagged"
copy theory to be correct, 
please explain in relation to the actual language of the
license itself.

Unless the two copies are different copyrightable works of
authorship, how can 
you not choose whichever license you want for whichever copy
of the work you 
desire?

If they are indeed different copyrightable works of
authorship, then there is 
no problem.
>
> /Peter Brink

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

drew Roberts skrev:
 >
 > 1. Definitions
 >
 > e. "Work" means the copyrightable work of
authorship offered under the
 > terms of this License.
 >
 > 3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions
of this License,
 > Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive,
 > perpetual (for the duration of the applicable
copyright) license to
 > exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
 >
 > As much as I would like the only to the
"tagged" copy theory to be
 > correct, please explain in relation to the actual
language of the
 > license itself.
 >
 > Unless the two copies are different copyrightable
works of authorship,
 > how can you not choose whichever license you want for
whichever copy
 > of the work you desire?
 >

As you know the license is non-exclusive. The copyright
holder has 
reserved the right to offer the work under other licenses as
well. 
Assume that A publishes a book and reserves all rights. Then
later he 
publishes the same text as a pdf-file under CC-BY-SA. How
shall we 
interpret the meaning of art. 3 in this case? How would a
court approach 
the problem?

The entire issue boils down to a matter of contract
interpretation. I’m 
not overly familiar with how that is done in the US but in a
civil law 
jurisdiction I would suggest that a court might reason as
follows. There 
is a strong presumption in civil law jurisdictions against
far reaching 
interpretations of copyright contracts and in favour of
letting the 
author keep as much as possible of his rights. In the case
of A and his 
book, A has not offered the work in _that form_ under a CC
license. His 
intention seems to be that the book is strictly ARR. It’s
only later 
that he offers the work, in another form, under a CC-BY-SA
license. I 
would suggest that a civil law court in this situation would
interpret 
“work” restrictively and only take it to mean that
particular form of 
the work which has explicitly been offered (by attaching the
terms of 
the license to the work) under the license. This tendency
would quite 
likely be reinforced by the fact that the CC license would
most likely 
be seen by a civil law court as a beneficial grant of
enjoyment, and 
when interpreting such grants a court will base it’s
interpretation on 
the will of the benefactor and not on what the beneficiary
(the receiver 
of the benefit) would reasonably believe the grant to mean.

So (IMO) the end result is that a civil law court would
interpret the 
license _against_ its language and limit the scope of the
license to the 
specific form of the work which has explicitly been offered
under the 
license.


/Peter Brink


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

drew Roberts wrote:

> Unless the two copies are different copyrightable works
of authorship, how can 
> you not choose whichever license you want for whichever
copy of the work you 
> desire?
> 
> If they are indeed different copyrightable works of
authorship, then there is 
> no problem.

To show how easy it is to produce different copyrightable
works, I'll 
present the following examples:

Films:
* I am curious (yellow);
* I am curious (blue);

The first was filmed with a yellow filter.  The second was
filmed with a 
blue filter.

Books:
* UBS4;
* NA27;

The text is identical.  The punctuation is different.

xan

jonathon


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