It seems to me that if the new work does not "transform" or combine the CC-ND work with other creative material, then it is not a derivative, but a redistribution, which is allowed by the license. The license can make its definition of derivative a subset of the copyright code definition, but it can't expand it to include things which would normally be defined as redistribution.
I don't think it intends to because although the derivative work definition includes "...any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted...", a latter bit of the license allows that the "...above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised.", therefore it does not intend to disclaim non-creative transformations. I would say that a resize would always be allowed, a cropping might be subject to interpretation depending on whether it was a "creative" cropping.
I think a decent "acid test" for derivative is whether, if the given transformation were applied to an already public domain work, it would merit a new copyright protection for the new work created.
[[User:Kwh]]
On 3/14/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only very "large" derivatives ( i.e., translating it into another language) rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example, syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. 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.
FF On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack < justin@specialbusservice.com > wrote:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the license...
Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an image of you for things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l