[Commons-l] Fwd: Share-Alike with images

[geni]

On 2/10/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 2/10/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at 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.

-- 
geni