Creative Commons clarification

[waldronate]

@Waldronate
I understand what your saying and what you mean and this was how I thought it was. But lets say I copied half of their images, color corrected them a bit and resized them. I.e. I am stripping away their choice of which images, the exact color and size and leave nothing but the pixel data pertaining to the image which is public domain and then I create a web site from these new images. How is that still a problem. Or I took the 3D laser scan Michelangelo "The David" sculpture data, rehashed a new math surface and chose a new set of 10 million points from it which were different from their original set. Still a problem ? I don't think it should be but I bet it would be.

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but making a simple derivative work of the original is the problem. In your first example, your work is based directly on their expression of their compilation, not on the original source material. As such it is a derivative work and subject to their copyright and licensing. If your work provides new insight using the original materials then it may be acceptable use, but the lines are very blurry and change over time.

The reworking of a data set as indicated in the second example may or may not generate a new work if you use a new algorithm to better highlight certain items of the data set (that is if your work is transformative). If you simply decimate the data set as in the first example then it's a trivial transformation and not subject to being claimed as a new work.

I hate to say it, but the Wikipedia article on derivative work isn't too bad. But, as always, I'm not a lawyer.

[Sigurd]

I think one the huge problems with the system is that even with the best intentions and honesty you might not get it right. You certainly might be discouraged from creating something potentially useful.

Conversely, as has been seen, if you game the system you can hope for abusive damages and disproportionate power. By no means am I saying that authors shouldn't be recognized but lying in the weeds hoping to sue someone for more than you would properly have received for a license is abusive.

I'm saddened by the chilling affect it has on good projects. I really like things like the Creative Commons and the GPL. At least they announce themselves and their expectations.


Hypothetically, what happens if one contributes work to a CC project that is subsequently turned into a commercial venture. If your contribution helps make it commercial but you did not gain from or know of the commercial abuse can you be blamed?

ie A brilliant compilatoin of all things Cartographer's Guild is made by Smeagol. It's so slick Sauroman comes along and repackages is (slightly) and sells it without consent or sharing any profits. Does Smeagol have anything to worry about from authors earlier in the chain of authorship?

Sigurd.

[Redrobes]

@Sigurd - If its CC licensed as non commercial - the NC bit - then you cant legally sell it on.

@waldronate - I agree that is the situation. My issue with all of this is that the first copyrighted scan should be copyrighting just the new elements of the compilation. If you took the compilation bits away from it that should leave the public domain bit left. Just because I take a photo of a public domain work should not mean that I should be able to copyright the public domain bit in the picture. My photo might be copyright but the image which its of isn't. So if I create a derivative work that strips away my new artistic input on the image - which is practically none whatsoever in the case of a straight up digi photo then I ought to be alright. I dont think you should be able to flatbed scan a public domain image and have any rights at all over that image. Now I know thats not entirely the way it works but that was the intention of copyright in the beginning.

My opinion is that if you choose to meticulously duplicate a public domain work then even if your scanner is expensive or that it took days to do it is not anyone elses concern. The image or shape is still public domain and that goes even if the original was locked away and the duplicator has the only access to it. If he didn't want it published then he shouldn't have published it. Once he has then its a published public domain work which everyone should be able to use.

The current situation is that there is no public domain in any real sense. Every time I take an original public domain work and put a photo of it on the web then my web site image copy is copyright. The only public domain stuff is stuff which I personally have copied from the original. Thats not what the word 'public' means at all - it should be known as 'personal domain'.

Edit -- that wikipedia link is an excellent summary of the state of a derivative work and seems to suggest that the way I think it ought to work is the way is should be implemented in law. I ought to be ok to be able to take a subset of these bestiary images and use them it seems.