On 10/02/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a discussion from cc-licenses, the Creative Commons mailing list, that might be of interest to some. See the thread here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/004960.html
Hmm... I wouldn't consider some writing illustrated with an image of mine to be a deriviative work of my image. I agree with Rob who said "The combination is collective/aggregate, not derivative." That would mean some articles on Wikipedia are CC-BY-SA as well as GFDL, and no one's ever suggested that... If CC's "SA" were to acquire this meaning, we'd have to disallow it for all Wikimedia projects that are GFDL, wouldn't we?
Rob also said "People just don't expect to see their BY-SA photographs "linked" to proprietary articles..." well I would be happy to! I guess "proprietary" works are not exactly equivalent to "commercial" works, but they are pretty close. I always push this point to other users, that using CC-BY-SA means accepting your work might turn up in commercial works...if you accept that, it's not a big shock to get to proprietary works.
I think of derivative works of images as crops image adjustments such as colour balance montages conversions to other formats (eg SVG) ... that's about it.
You're welcome to fwd my comments back to the CC list.
cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise