<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Play the Web - Latest Comments in Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:02:05 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.org/2008/08/20/reusing-content-derivative-work-vs-modified-work/#comment-1726043</link><description>Why make a distinction between modified and derivative work? Why not call it all modified or all derivative work?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kelli</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:02:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.org/2008/08/20/reusing-content-derivative-work-vs-modified-work/#comment-1704051</link><description>Great insights, Blaise. Thanks.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;From the link on Wikipedia, the way I read Transformative use would imply all of these images are transformative use.  I too am no lawyer.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, I am not trying to make a legal distinction. I'm more interested in content mark-up/metadata for content that is being reused. I think it is valuable to KNOW if a work I'm looking at is a derivative of another work. And although it may not be clear in my post, I'm trying to figure out:&lt;br&gt;1. If there are any hard rules for defining a work "Derivative". If so a system can define and then auto generate the metadata Work=Deriviative versus Work=Original. It seems to me that Derivative is likely a user generated field. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;2. But there are easily defined rules for Modified work. However, is that useful metadata? Work=modified?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ddonat</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:12:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.org/2008/08/20/reusing-content-derivative-work-vs-modified-work/#comment-1703896</link><description>Hey Bryan,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Well, I actually agree. I am not advocating technology controls. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I am wondering if it would be useful for a technology to understand "Yes this is a Derivative work", but it seems to me that "derivative or not" must be a human input piece of metadata. Technology can't define a Derivative work.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However technology can determine if it is modified, and as such "Yes this is a modified work" could be a system generated piece of metadata. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Is it worth it to a content creator to know if content is modified or not?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ddonat</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:58:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.org/2008/08/20/reusing-content-derivative-work-vs-modified-work/#comment-1703503</link><description>In other words, I think you're inventing the distinction between modified and derivative works. That's not a legal distinction, to the best of my knowledge.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;There is, however (at least in the US), a distinction between non-transformative and transformative derivative works.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Blaise Alleyne</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:28:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.org/2008/08/20/reusing-content-derivative-work-vs-modified-work/#comment-1703482</link><description>I'm no lawyer,but I've taken an interest in this sort of thing.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;All of those cases are clearly derivative works, except maybe image 3. The Creative Commons tends &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to view a picture in a page of text as a derivative work, where as the Free Software Foundation (with the GNU Free Documentation License) believes that &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; constitute a derivative work. Which of them is right has yet to be seen, and would depend on the theories being tested in court. &lt;a href="http://groups.google.com/group/freeculturalworks/msg/4c148888744c96e2?hl=en" rel="nofollow"&gt;Or so I've been told.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I don't see how there's any question as to whether a cropped image is legally a derivative work. I think the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; question you're asking is about &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(law)" rel="nofollow"&gt;transformative use&lt;/a&gt;. I think there's a strong argument that image 1 is transformative, whereas it would be harder to say the same about image 4. Image 3, if considered a derivative of the original, is also clearly transformative.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Blaise Alleyne</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:27:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Reusing Content: Derivative Work vs Modified Work</title><link>http://playtheweb.org/2008/08/20/reusing-content-derivative-work-vs-modified-work/#comment-1703469</link><description>Interesting question - but I'm not so sure this is a technology problem, but rather a cultural and/or legal one. IMO a technology solution to this would likely result in DRM being required on all hardware and software for this to work - which REALLY scares me.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Bryan Rieger</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:26:26 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>