Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
- To: Paul Tagliamonte <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
- From: Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:37:36 -0700
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20130913203016.GA23867@helios.localdomain> (Paul Tagliamonte's message of "Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:30:16 -0400")
- References: <20130125140700.GA15376@falafel.plessy.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130126133513.GB4263@falafel.plessy.net> <20130126140148.GA3604@jwilk.net> <20130127010406.GA27687@falafel.plessy.net> <510685AE.email@example.com> <20130223133904.GC3875@falafel.plessy.net> <20130225134638.GA3438@falafel.plessy.net> <20130913201822.GA23349@helios.localdomain> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130913203016.GA23867@helios.localdomain>
Paul Tagliamonte <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Er, I don't understand why you think this is significant. The work
>> formed by taking the original and putting it under a different license
>> is trivially a derivative work.
> While it's not defined to my liking in the CC* set, it defines a
> derivative work as::
> | "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.
> I'm not convinced a relicense is considered a work based upon the work.
> Just like a patch, I'd assume this to be a creative work / modification
> to the work.
Ah, I hadn't ever thought about it from that angle. Basically, the
argument is that if there's no original creative addition, it can't be a
derivative work? On first glance, 17 U.S.C. § 101 appears to support
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
The definition does require that it be "an original work of authorship,"
which isn't true of trivial changes to the original.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>