Can I mix CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 artwork? How to license output of such mix, such as a screenshot? Is it even having a license?

Question

What is the license of following screenshot of StreetComplete? In this case only image licenses are relevant, some CC-BY-SA 3.0 and some CC-BY-SA 4.0 and some less problematic.

But how the entire screeshoot should be licensed and attributed? List of licenses for each image segment?

1. memorial_type_statue.jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0 Rabax63 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garibaldi_Monument.jpg
2. memorial_type_bust.jpg CC0 Jebulon https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aristotelis_Valaoritis_bust_National_Garden_Athens,_Greece.jpg
3. memorial_type_plaque.jpg Public Domain Geotek https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bleaklow_Plaque.jpg
4. memorial_type_war_memorial.jpg Public Domain Stanfordsiver https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Women_of_World_War_II.jpg
5. memorial_type_stone.jpg Public Domain Ola / Ojp https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Memorial_stone_of_battle_of_Liljendal.18080224.ojp.JPG
6. memorial_type_obelisk.jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0 Leserättin https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KatCC-BY-SAharina-Denkmal_(2).jpg
7. memorial_type_stele_wooden.jpg CC-BY-SA 3.0 Assenmacher https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infostele_Chronik_der_Mauer_mit_Adolph_Philipp.JPG
8. memorial_type_stele_stone.jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0 Alta Falisa https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18_June_1815_%E2%80%93_Waterloo_%E2%80%93_27th_(Inniskilling)_Regiment_of_Foot,_stele.jpg modified by Matija Nalis to remove wreath
9. memorial_type_sculpture.jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0 Adrian Tync https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katowice_alpinists_monument.jpg

Answer 1

Overhauled answer: I don't think anybody knows for sure, though I am indebted to all those who have offered intelligent and insightful commentary.

The issue seems to me to hinge on whether the combination of several images into a single image makes a derivative work, or simply a collection of original works. This distinction is important because:

• if it's simply a collection, all the elements can be distributed under their existing licences. Moreover, they must be so distributed, because since both CC BY-SA 3 and CC BY-SA 4 unmodified content must remain under its original licence there is no one licence that can cover all these works, while

• if it's a derivative work, you can uprate the modified CC BY-SA 3 content to CC BY-SA 4, and publish the single resulting work under CC BY-SA 4.

What it doesn't hinge on is that you've made an image, rather than a printed item. It also doesn't hinge on the time you put into selecting those images; your decision doesn't impart creative expression to your selection any more than spending ten hours looking for your preferred timsort implementation counts as input into the code.

The arguments in favour of derivative work are ably made by my colleague in his answer, and the comments thereon.

The arguments in favour of simple collection include Drauglis, and an analysis that suggests simple cropping doesn't constitute protectable input. But I also note that the judgement in Drauglis noted that the CC work was used unmodified, which may limit its application here.

Where does that leave you? The preponderance of the argument leans towards derivative work, thus enabling a single licence, but it's not a slam-dunk. However, I note that even in the case of a derivative work there is no bar on using the existing licences in all cases.

So if you want simplicity and are prepared to take some risk, license your resulting image under CC BY-SA 4. If you want no risk, license the constituent images under their original licences.

Answer 2

Part of the considerations for this answer is, whether this combination of pictures (with all the changes performed on the individual pictures, such as cropping, captions, etc) make it an adaption or not. CC has published some guidance and it is not black and white. The following is based on my assessment, that it is an adaption. (See the link below for the implications if you think it is just a collection.)

CC-BY-SA 4.0 will be perfect for this combination of photos.

For the files that are anyhow under CC-BY-SA 4.0 this is obvious.

I did not do a side-by-side comparison of CC-BY-SA 3.0 v. 4.0, I am relying on the statements by CC about compatibility which says that modified content originally under 3.0 can be licensed under 4.0 (see Section 4.b in CC-BY-SA 3.0 ).

By the nature of the licenses, files in PD or under CC0 can be used in works licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (see the chart here ).

While it is not necessary, in order to make it clearer for downstream users of your combined work and because it is a nice gesture towards the initial artists, and because you anyhow need a list to comply with the CC-BY-SA content, I would include the names of the creators of the pictures in PD and under CC0 in the list of attributions.

Within CC's training material they have an entire section on remixing CC-licensed work including how to distinguish adaptations / remixes vs. collections.

You may want to read the following guidance by Creative Commons:

Guidance on Attribution

Best practices for attribution

Marking/Creators/Marking third party content