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
I've also asked Larry Lessig for his thoughts on the matter. I think that if we cannot achieve this with CC-BY-SA, it may be necessary to create a stronger copyleft license that does. But the answer isn't clear yet, and it might be helpful if some Wikimedians weigh in on the discussion.
Mailing list subscription info: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org Date: Feb 9, 2007 4:44 AM Subject: Fwd: Share-Alike with images To: lessig@pobox.com
Hello Larry,
I have received no clear response to this on the cc-licenses mailing list. It would be helpful to discuss this a bit. If CC doesn't want to explicitly make copyleft apply to, e.g., the combination of an article and an image, it might be useful to create a separate, stronger copyleft license for this purpose.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org Date: Feb 5, 2007 3:01 AM Subject: Share-Alike with images To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts cc-licenses@lists.ibiblio.org
The Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license currently states:
"For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ('synching') will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."
This is cool and helps to clarify copyleft in the context of music. What about the case where a photo is used in a newspaper or encyclopedia article? Like a musical piece in a movie, there is a clear semantic relationship between the two; one is directly enriched in its meaning by the other.
I think the license is currently ambiguous about such uses. However, I think it would be clearly in line with the copyleft philosophy to demand free licensing of the combined whole in such a case (not in the case of mere aggregation within e.g. a collection of photos where there's no semantic relationship between them). In my discussions with photographers, I've found that many use NC licenses because they worry about commercial exploitation of their works. If we could clarify copyleft in the context of images, many of these fears could be alleviated.
The simple fact is that a photo by itself is not likely to be modified much, especially if it's of very high quality to begin with. That's why I think it's important that we establish a clear and unambiguous reciprocity when images are used in larger works. Perhaps the movie-specific phrase in the current SA license text could be generalized:
"For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is semantically combined with another (a film with time-synchronized music, an article with pictures, and so on), the combined Work will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this license."
I don't think the "Collective Work" portion would need to be modified, as it already speaks of "separate and independent" works, which would be clarified by a phrase like the above. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
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
On 2/10/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Then why would you use a copyleft license at all for a completed image?
It is important that copyleft licenses are sufficiently strong. A weak copyleft license may not due the world much good: We accept the slight extra burden of copyleft because it expands the pool of Free Content by requiring an equitable trade when someone creates a new and enhanced work using a copylefted work. A copyleft that allows you to enhance a proprietary work with a free once doesn't achieve that goal: It is probably not a good bargain.
Even if we ignore the (lacking) wisdom of creating 'weak' copyleft licenses it still would require a fairly new and styled interpretation of copyleft to say that the combination of an image and an associated text into a semantically coherent whole is not a derivative. Copyleft licenses are not sometimes called 'viral' completely without cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F , although viral is something of a mischaracterization: Copyleft only infects the willing).
That the Creative Commons would allow the CC-By-SA to become a weak copyleft indeed (through later versions or just their interpretations of the text) will be a total shock to some, and a complete non-shock to others.
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.
Egads!
A proprietary work is an entirely separate beast than a commercial work.
With a proprietary work, the distributor denies you and everyone else substantial and important freedoms with how you use the work.
With a commercial work, the distributor only gives the work to people whom compensate him for his labors.
These concepts are completely orthogonal.
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.
Save the last, these are all trivial modifications which could easily be performed again against the original free work. They would most likely not pass the threshold of creativity required to earn their own copyright in any case. The value of making sure these derivatives are as free as the original is of very limited value to the overall pool of free works
(Although .. a montage is a derivative, but an article written around an illustration would not be? This seems inconsistent to me).
On 2/10/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... I wouldn't consider some writing illustrated with an image of mine to be a deriviative work of my image.
Would you consider a film with a music composition a derivative of the music? CC-BY-SA does. I'm not sure I would get hung up on the exact meanings of "derivative work"; I think it makes more sense to emphasize the _semantic relationship_ between two combined works.
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?
Not necessarily. CC-BY-SA 3.0 will include a compatibility clause: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234
If this will include the GFDL, a strong copyleft CC-BY-SA would allow a third party to either comply, or migrate to a compatible license.
We've always held that GFDL combined with other pictures and media are "mere aggregations", so it may be in our interest not to advocate a strict interpretation of existing licenses. But it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me to desire stronger copyleft protection for works which are, in their nature, unlikely to be significantly modified directly.
On 2/10/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: [snip]
We've always held that GFDL combined with other pictures and media are "mere aggregations", so it may be in our interest not to advocate a strict interpretation of existing licenses. But it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me to desire stronger copyleft protection for works which are, in their nature, unlikely to be significantly modified directly.
To be fair, ... we've held that in part because we have depended on it, and because at one time we didn't understand the importance of non-textual illustration as we do today... Not necessarily so much because it made sense or because was good policy. Certainly there are cases where it really is mere aggregation, but by no means are all. In some cases, that the result is a derivative is beneficial under US law at least.
For a long time, enwiki required that all free images uploaded be at least dual licensed with the GFDL, but this requirement was accidentally lost in upload page refactorings more times than I can count... eventually people gave up because figuring out which images were and were not submitted with that requirement became impossible and the lack of a similar requirement on commons made the matter moot. Had I known then what I know now, I would have fought for different requirements. Live and learn.
There have been plenty of cases where I created images while working with a Wikipedia article and enhanced the text of a Wikipedia article around an illustration. The end result being neither the image nor the article could have existed in its final state without the other. This would probably meet the most stringent criteria for a derivative which you could invent. While only minority of our cases are that clear cut, there are many more which could easily be classified as derivative under any one of many sensible definitions such as your semantic relation criteria.
On 2/10/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/10/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... I wouldn't consider some writing illustrated with an image of mine to be a deriviative work of my image.
Would you consider a film with a music composition a derivative of the music? CC-BY-SA does.
Then CC-BY-SA is going to produce some truly moronic results under UK law.
Copyright on sound recordings in the UK lasts 50 years. So I take a 51 year old bit of music and use it as a backing for a film. Then I try to release it under CC-By-SA
It is now a derative of that bit of music but copyright on films lasts rather longer than 50 years in the uk so the copyright situation that results is rather odd.
I'm not sure I would get hung up on the exact meanings of "derivative work"; I think it makes more sense to emphasize the _semantic relationship_ between two combined works.
I think wikipedia relies to a very great degree on this not being the case. Still you are free to list every "free art" image for deletion.
Not necessarily. CC-BY-SA 3.0 will include a compatibility clause: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234
If this will include the GFDL, a strong copyleft CC-BY-SA would allow a third party to either comply, or migrate to a compatible license.
Or if it does not include that we end up with an even more complex situation with regard to lisences than we already are.
We've always held that GFDL combined with other pictures and media are "mere aggregations", so it may be in our interest not to advocate a strict interpretation of existing licenses. But it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me to desire stronger copyleft protection for works which are, in their nature, unlikely to be significantly modified directly.
We modify photos all the time.
2007/2/10, geni geniice@gmail.com:
Then CC-BY-SA is going to produce some truly moronic results under UK law.
Copyright on sound recordings in the UK lasts 50 years. So I take a 51 year old bit of music and use it as a backing for a film. Then I try to release it under CC-By-SA
It is now a derative of that bit of music but copyright on films lasts rather longer than 50 years in the uk so the copyright situation that results is rather odd.
I don't see what's odd about that. It's a work, copyrighted by you, under CC-BY-SA, and based on a public domain work. It's no different than the same situation would have been if the music had been not 51 but 300 years old. And little different than the same situation where you had not put it under CC-BY-SA.
On 2/10/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see what's odd about that. It's a work, copyrighted by you, under CC-BY-SA, and based on a public domain work. It's no different than the same situation would have been if the music had been not 51 but 300 years old. And little different than the same situation where you had not put it under CC-BY-SA.
But CC-By-SA is claiming the film is a derivative of the sound recording despite film and sound being seperate under uk law. So even though I have made no changes to the music CC-By-SA is trying to claim it is under copyright again because is it is part of a film.
Another way to look at this is that CC thinks that the soundtrack of a 51 year old film in the UK is not PD.
2007/2/10, geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 2/10/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see what's odd about that. It's a work, copyrighted by you,
under
CC-BY-SA, and based on a public domain work. It's no different than the
same
situation would have been if the music had been not 51 but 300 years
old.
And little different than the same situation where you had not put it
under
CC-BY-SA.
But CC-By-SA is claiming the film is a derivative of the sound recording despite film and sound being seperate under uk law. So even though I have made no changes to the music CC-By-SA is trying to claim it is under copyright again because is it is part of a film.
No, it does not claim the music is under copyright, only the film is under copyright. You are allowed to use non-copyrighted work in copyrighted work.
On 2/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But CC-By-SA is claiming the film is a derivative of the sound recording despite film and sound being seperate under uk law. So even though I have made no changes to the music CC-By-SA is trying to claim it is under copyright again because is it is part of a film.
There are at least three copyrights potentially at play:
* Any copyright(s) subsisting in the music, * Any copyright(s) subsisting in the moving image, * The copyright in the film, created by synching the music and moving image.
If the music is under CC-BY-SA, then the copyright in the synching is thus also under CC-BY-SA because the licence treats it as a derivative work. They remain as separate copyrights.
Note that the text of the licence makes no express comments about synching music that is not under CC-BY-SA, which is the premise of your example.
On 2/10/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
There are at least three copyrights potentially at play:
- Any copyright(s) subsisting in the music,
- Any copyright(s) subsisting in the moving image,
- The copyright in the film, created by synching the music and moving image.
If the music is under CC-BY-SA, then the copyright in the synching is thus also under CC-BY-SA because the licence treats it as a derivative work. They remain as separate copyrights
That is incorrect, the film might be in copyright violation of the music, and a possible remedy might be releasing the film under the same license. The implication that it is automatically under that license is however, incorrect.
LetterRip
On 2/10/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/2/10, geni geniice@gmail.com:
Then CC-BY-SA is going to produce some truly moronic results under UK law.
Copyright on sound recordings in the UK lasts 50 years. So I take a 51 year old bit of music and use it as a backing for a film. Then I try to release it under CC-By-SA
It is now a derative of that bit of music but copyright on films lasts rather longer than 50 years in the uk so the copyright situation that results is rather odd.
I don't see what's odd about that. It's a work, copyrighted by you, under CC-BY-SA, and based on a public domain work. It's no different than the same situation would have been if the music had been not 51 but 300 years old. And little different than the same situation where you had not put it under CC-BY-SA.
Agreed, and not weird at all when you consider all the movies that lapsed due to lack of re-registration... yet which can not be treated as free works because of the copyrighted music and dialog they contain.