4

CC BY-SA, LGPL and GPL are all copyleft licenses. GPL's key feature is that by embedding one work in another (as defined in a software context), the combined work becomes GPL. With LGPL this is not the case.

My understanding is that if I embed a CC BY-SA work in something, say a photo in an article or a song in the background of a video, the work does not have to be CC BY-SA, it could even be restricted (as long as attribution is given). So in this way would it be more accurate to compare CC BY-SA to LGPL rather than GPL?

(I assume that a music video of a pre-existing song would be a derived work, but a slideshow with background music would be a combined work. For the purpose of this question let's assume the distinction is clear.)

|improve this question
5

My understanding is that if I embed a CC BY SA work in something, say a [...] song in the background of a video, the work does not have to be CC BY SA

I think this may be a misunderstanding. Looking at CC-BY-SA 4.0, it says in s1a

For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.

and in s3b

if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply [...] The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.

So it seems pretty clear to me that according to Creative Commons, if you embed a CC-BY-SA song in a video, the video must indeed be licenced CC-BY-SA (or under a compatible licence). I can't comment on the photo issue.

What this really comes down to is what makes a derivative work, and (as writings here and elsewhere attest) this is not a settled issue. But the distinction is one of copyright law, and not of an explicit exemption (as is the case in LGPL). So for the purpose of this question I regard CC-BY-SA as much more like the GPL, on that basis.

|improve this answer
  • But for the other example (embedding a CC-BY-SA photo in an article) I do not think the SA clause applies to the article. This is in fact similar to the LGPL. – amon Apr 8 '18 at 13:23
  • 1
    The CC-BY-SA clause is not explicit about whether photo-in-article leads to a derived work, but it is still clear that if it does, the derived work must be CC-BY-SA (or compatible). Whether that leads to a derived work is a copyright law question, not an explicit exemption one; I stand by my conclusion that this is GPL-like, rather than LGPL-like. But you should of course feel free to write your own answer if you disagree. – MadHatter Apr 8 '18 at 15:49

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.