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.