Benj. Mako Hill | 12 Apr 22:23 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

<quote who="Elizabeth Stark" date="Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:51:06PM -0400">
> Nope. Under the license, it only applies to the photo itself in the context
> of a newspaper. So they used it correctly.

CC seems to have a taken a position that the license basically stops at
the edge of a photograph. Basically, this means that if you don't modify
the content of a photograph, you can basically do what you want with it
under an an SA license (of course, Evan's comments, and a few things he
didn't say, still need to be kept in mind).

This is one reason a number of photographs who upload to Wikimedia
Commons prefer the GFDL and its related to the reason why Larry Lessig
has analogizing NC clauses and copyleft for software -- although I
personally disagree with Lessig's argument in this respect.

Regards,
Mako

--

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@...
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
(Continue reading)

Lawrence Lessig | 13 Apr 19:37 2007
Picon

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

I am not sure I see how the GFDL solves any perceived problem that BY- 
SA creates. The GFDL, like every copyleft license I know of, applies  
its obligation to license beyond the original work only if there is a  
"modification." It, more over, explicitly permits items to be mixed  
without the copyleft component being applied to the other works. A  
photographer concerned that the copyleft rules of the BY-SA don't  
obligate enough won't get additional obligations from the GFDL.

This is indeed why, e.g., Erik, is thinking about a clever  
modification to the BY-SA scope to apply the obligation beyond  
derivatives. But until such modifications are added, either to the CC  
licenses or the GFDL, copyleft licenses will raise this important  
issue for photographers, and other authors too.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

> <quote who="Elizabeth Stark" date="Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:51:06PM  
> -0400">
>> Nope. Under the license, it only applies to the photo itself in  
>> the context
>> of a newspaper. So they used it correctly.
>
> CC seems to have a taken a position that the license basically  
> stops at
> the edge of a photograph. Basically, this means that if you don't  
> modify
> the content of a photograph, you can basically do what you want  
> with it
> under an an SA license (of course, Evan's comments, and a few  
> things he
> didn't say, still need to be kept in mind).
(Continue reading)

drew Roberts | 13 Apr 20:02 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

On Friday 13 April 2007 01:37 pm, Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> I am not sure I see how the GFDL solves any perceived problem that BY-
> SA creates. The GFDL, like every copyleft license I know of, applies
> its obligation to license beyond the original work only if there is a
> "modification." It, more over, explicitly permits items to be mixed
> without the copyleft component being applied to the other works. A
> photographer concerned that the copyleft rules of the BY-SA don't
> obligate enough won't get additional obligations from the GFDL.
>
> This is indeed why, e.g., Erik, is thinking about a clever
> modification to the BY-SA scope to apply the obligation beyond
> derivatives. But until such modifications are added, either to the CC
> licenses or the GFDL, copyleft licenses will raise this important
> issue for photographers, and other authors too.

Would you care to comment on my thoughts on a way to deal with this as posted 
here:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-April/001702.html

Also, if something like this could work, could the sync rights move over to 
such a scheme or could we at least have a more narrowly defined set of 
circumstances where sync rights are needed?

all the best,

drew

>
> On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
(Continue reading)

Lawrence Lessig | 19 Apr 16:10 2007
Picon

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

I think we need to have a real, extended discussion of this. I like  
this proposal, though I don't know enough to say I think it is right.  
I'm hopeful the iCommons Summit might be an opportunity to work  
through this more carefully.
On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:02 AM, drew Roberts wrote:

> On Friday 13 April 2007 01:37 pm, Lawrence Lessig wrote:
>> I am not sure I see how the GFDL solves any perceived problem that  
>> BY-
>> SA creates. The GFDL, like every copyleft license I know of, applies
>> its obligation to license beyond the original work only if there is a
>> "modification." It, more over, explicitly permits items to be mixed
>> without the copyleft component being applied to the other works. A
>> photographer concerned that the copyleft rules of the BY-SA don't
>> obligate enough won't get additional obligations from the GFDL.
>>
>> This is indeed why, e.g., Erik, is thinking about a clever
>> modification to the BY-SA scope to apply the obligation beyond
>> derivatives. But until such modifications are added, either to the CC
>> licenses or the GFDL, copyleft licenses will raise this important
>> issue for photographers, and other authors too.
>
> Would you care to comment on my thoughts on a way to deal with this  
> as posted
> here:
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-April/001702.html
>
> Also, if something like this could work, could the sync rights move  
> over to
(Continue reading)

Veni Markovski | 19 Apr 16:22 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

At 07:10 4/19/2007  -0700, Lessig wrote:
>I think we need to have a real, extended discussion of this. I like
>this proposal, though I don't know enough to say I think it is right.
>I'm hopeful the iCommons Summit might be an opportunity to work
>through this more carefully

I join you in this. Internet Society - Bulgaria will have, I hope, 
two people at the Summit, one of them is a very good lawyer, who was 
part of the localization process in Bulgaria. She could be of help 
there. I will let her know, so that she prepares herself for such a discussion.

veni 
drew Roberts | 19 Apr 21:21 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

On Thursday 19 April 2007 10:10 am, Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> I think we need to have a real, extended discussion of this. I like
> this proposal, though I don't know enough to say I think it is right.
> I'm hopeful the iCommons Summit might be an opportunity to work
> through this more carefully.

I don't really know anything about iCommons or the Summit. I am just here on 
community and licenses.

I am very interested in these issues though and am willing to take part in 
extended discussions of them.

all the best,

drew
>
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:02 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Friday 13 April 2007 01:37 pm, Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> >> I am not sure I see how the GFDL solves any perceived problem that
> >> BY-
> >> SA creates. The GFDL, like every copyleft license I know of, applies
> >> its obligation to license beyond the original work only if there is a
> >> "modification." It, more over, explicitly permits items to be mixed
> >> without the copyleft component being applied to the other works. A
> >> photographer concerned that the copyleft rules of the BY-SA don't
> >> obligate enough won't get additional obligations from the GFDL.
> >>
> >> This is indeed why, e.g., Erik, is thinking about a clever
> >> modification to the BY-SA scope to apply the obligation beyond
> >> derivatives. But until such modifications are added, either to the CC
(Continue reading)

Terry Hancock | 19 Apr 23:29 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> I think we need to have a real, extended discussion of this. I like  
> this proposal, though I don't know enough to say I think it is right.  
> I'm hopeful the iCommons Summit might be an opportunity to work  
> through this more carefully.

Although I understand the motivation to extend the copyleft to
containing works, it presents a number of nasty consequences which I
believe have to be avoided if you want it to work (here's a few I can
think of right off):

1) "License the Universe"

Any reasonable use of a work means it is "contained" in something else
whose license you are not able to, or should not attempt, to control.

For example, an HTML page "contains" an image. A website "contains" an
HTML page. The Internet "contains" the website.  Therefore, if a
copyleft license binds "containing" works, then a copylefted image
either cannot be published on the Internet period, or the entire
Internet must be relicensed!

Think of Wikipedia -- is it one work, or millions?

Obviously, the courts won't hold that up. So is the plan to leave the
scope up to the courts? That seems like a dangerous piece of baiting.
They might easily decide to set a precedent against ALL copyleft.

I used to think that copyleft was intrinsically limited to what
copyright can cover -- and I think that's not a bad rule of thumb to
(Continue reading)

drew Roberts | 20 Apr 00:05 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

On Thursday 19 April 2007 05:29 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> > I think we need to have a real, extended discussion of this. I like
> > this proposal, though I don't know enough to say I think it is right.
> > I'm hopeful the iCommons Summit might be an opportunity to work
> > through this more carefully.
>
> Although I understand the motivation to extend the copyleft to
> containing works, it presents a number of nasty consequences which I
> believe have to be avoided if you want it to work (here's a few I can
> think of right off):
>
> 1) "License the Universe"
>
> Any reasonable use of a work means it is "contained" in something else
> whose license you are not able to, or should not attempt, to control.
>
> For example, an HTML page "contains" an image. A website "contains" an
> HTML page. The Internet "contains" the website.  Therefore, if a
> copyleft license binds "containing" works, then a copylefted image
> either cannot be published on the Internet period, or the entire
> Internet must be relicensed!
>
> Think of Wikipedia -- is it one work, or millions?
>
> Obviously, the courts won't hold that up. So is the plan to leave the
> scope up to the courts? That seems like a dangerous piece of baiting.
> They might easily decide to set a precedent against ALL copyleft.
>
> I used to think that copyleft was intrinsically limited to what
(Continue reading)

Rob Myers | 20 Apr 09:15 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

Terry Hancock wrote:

> Although I understand the motivation to extend the copyleft to
> containing works, it presents a number of nasty consequences which I
> believe have to be avoided if you want it to work (here's a few I can
> think of right off):

Certainly the side effects would need thinking through very thoroughly 
and may be worse than just accepting the loss.

Fair Use would also need to be strongly defined for images, for example 
works of criticism should be able to use images as illustrations under 
Fair Use without having to be copylefted themselves. This is important 
for free speech.

> 1) "License the Universe"
> 
> Any reasonable use of a work means it is "contained" in something else
> whose license you are not able to, or should not attempt, to control.

"Contained" is not a legal term AFAIK and as you are using it here seems 
to cover both use and distribution (in GPL-2 terms).

> For example, an HTML page "contains" an image. 

The code for an HTML page does not contain an image. The rendering of an 
HTML page will create an image that combines the text of the html with 
the pixels of the image in a single unit. This is use.

> A website "contains" an HTML page. 
(Continue reading)

drew Roberts | 23 Apr 15:01 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

On Friday 20 April 2007 03:15 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > Although I understand the motivation to extend the copyleft to
> > containing works, it presents a number of nasty consequences which I
> > believe have to be avoided if you want it to work (here's a few I can
> > think of right off):
>
> Certainly the side effects would need thinking through very thoroughly
> and may be worse than just accepting the loss.
>
> Fair Use would also need to be strongly defined for images, for example
> works of criticism should be able to use images as illustrations under
> Fair Use without having to be copylefted themselves. This is important
> for free speech.
>
> > 1) "License the Universe"
> >
> > Any reasonable use of a work means it is "contained" in something else
> > whose license you are not able to, or should not attempt, to control.
>
> "Contained" is not a legal term AFAIK and as you are using it here seems
> to cover both use and distribution (in GPL-2 terms).
>
> > For example, an HTML page "contains" an image.
>
> The code for an HTML page does not contain an image. The rendering of an
> HTML page will create an image that combines the text of the html with
> the pixels of the image in a single unit. This is use.
>
> > A website "contains" an HTML page.
(Continue reading)

rob | 23 Apr 15:23 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz@...>:

> For all of this contains, mere aggregation, use and the like, what is wrong
> with the concept I put forth which is "if a copyright arises" - that is,
> copyright law may already have the answer. If the work under the CC SA
> license is used in a work where a new copyright comes into being, that is
> what we should concern ourselves with. If no new copyright comes into
> existence, it is not a problem.
>
> Is this not a reasonable way to look at it? Strenghts? Weaknesses?

I think that is how it currently works. A derivative work is a work  
that would attract its own copyright. So having derivation as the  
copyleft trigger fits copyright law perfectly.

There seem to be two major cases where this does not fit people's  
expectations: the use of a piece of music in a film soundtrack and the  
use of a photograph as a magazine illustration. The former has been  
worked into the CC licenses as a special case where copyleft is  
triggered by something other than derivation, the latter has not.

So I don't think that we can say that the licenses should only concern  
themselves with how copyright law works; there are already examples of  
where they do not do this (NC is another).

- Rob.
drew Roberts | 23 Apr 20:27 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

On Monday 23 April 2007 09:23 am, rob@... wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz@...>:
> > For all of this contains, mere aggregation, use and the like, what is
> > wrong with the concept I put forth which is "if a copyright arises" -
> > that is, copyright law may already have the answer. If the work under the
> > CC SA license is used in a work where a new copyright comes into being,
> > that is what we should concern ourselves with. If no new copyright comes
> > into existence, it is not a problem.
> >
> > Is this not a reasonable way to look at it? Strenghts? Weaknesses?
>
> I think that is how it currently works. A derivative work is a work
> that would attract its own copyright. So having derivation as the
> copyleft trigger fits copyright law perfectly.

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?

Is a newspaper on the whole copyrighted? Or only the individual articles? Is a 
magazine copyrighted?

The problem is that we only seek to control derivatives and we could also 
control copying and distribution where needed.

(Continue reading)

Rob Myers | 23 Apr 21:29 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

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.
(Continue reading)

drew Roberts | 23 Apr 22:55 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

On Monday 23 April 2007 03:29 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> 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. 

As far as I know, it doesn't matter whether they assert it or not. If a 
copyright can be had on a work these days, you get it automatically whether 
you want it or not.

> Does the work get 
> this automatically? 

I think so. Copyright is automatic, right? Or do only certain works or certain 
works get copyright protection automatically while others need to be marked 
or even registered?

> How does it interact with the underlying copyright? 

Does anyone know the answer to questions like this who would be willing to 
share them?
>
(Continue reading)

Benj. Mako Hill | 23 Apr 01:58 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

<quote who="Terry Hancock" date="Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:29:17PM -0500">
> As things stand we have a situation with some admitted faults -- it may
> be a little *too* free.

Weaker copyleft in this regards seems to lead people to license their
works under NC terms in situations where, if it were software or another
type of creative word, they would not.

> But trying to sew up the loopholes is going to cause problems, and I'm
> not convinced that the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease.

I'm not convinced either. But I am quite sure it is an issue that is
important enough that's its worth thinking hard about. Thanks for doing
some of the hard work toward that end.

Regards,
Mako

--

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@...
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
(Continue reading)

Terry Hancock | 23 Apr 23:22 2007

Re: Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?

Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="Terry Hancock" date="Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:29:17PM -0500">
>>As things stand we have a situation with some admitted faults -- it may
>>be a little *too* free.
> 
> Weaker copyleft in this regards seems to lead people to license their
> works under NC terms in situations where, if it were software or another
> type of creative word, they would not.

Perhaps true, though we have no experimental control on that observation.

>>But trying to sew up the loopholes is going to cause problems, and I'm
>>not convinced that the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease.
> 
> I'm not convinced either. But I am quite sure it is an issue that is
> important enough that's its worth thinking hard about. Thanks for doing
> some of the hard work toward that end.

Well, I'm not totally convinced of the opposite either. It could be that
one of these proposals is reasonable.

I've been thinking that such a proposal *in combination* with a proposal
to introduce standardized licensing fees and terms for clear copyrights
on By-SA works in commercial-proprietary container works might solve a
lot of people's problems with the present situation.

The truth is, what I object to is the extra web of dependency checking
that binding containing works would impose, and the possibility of a
"mine" going off (like a single author who decides to try to block the
work either by refusing permission or asking for ridiculously high fees,
(Continue reading)


Gmane