If I create a derivative work which contains an asset licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0, and another asset licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, how do I license the final derivative work?Do I license it under CC BY-SA 3.0 or something else?
It's an asset. That's like having me say should I license the park I'm in if I photograph it.
>>34139965Creative Commons BY-SA requires a few things.BY is attribution, meaning the resulting product must attribute the original unedited work.SA is sharealike, meaning the resulting product must be licensed under the same Creative Commons license as that original work, including linking to the Creative Commons website, specifically the page associated with that particular license.If someone has a drawing that I like and I edit it in photoshop, if that original drawing was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, then to publicly release my photoshopped image, I would need to license that photoshopped image under CC BY-SA 4.0 and attribute the original work and original creator.The question isn't about if I "need" to license my derivative work, because I live in a country where there is legal jurisdiction upholding Creative Commons. Legally I need to license this derivative work. I'm asking about what license I need to use. I don't know if CC BY-SA 3.0 is compatible with 2.0 or not.
>>34139977As a guy who has studied business law, no you don't. That's the tool, not the product.
>>34139983>That's the tool, not the product.Be specific, what do you mean by this? What is Creative Commons used for if not what I described?
>>34139985I license a hammer. You can not sell hammers like the one I gave you. But the hammer does not determine the house I sold you. The camera a filmmaker uses does not determine if they can sell the movie they made.Now how does this relate to the asset, you made a product, everything in this song you made is your version, but the asset you borrowed is just a tool. You may have gotten unique sounds from it, but you're selling a song, not a music program.
>>34139990I think that would be more akin to arguing that me using Photoshop to make a picture doesn't mean I have to credit Photoshop, which is correct.I think a more correct analogy would be "I own a brick company, and I'll give you bricks for free, but if you make a house, you have to make it known that you got bricks from me, according to this agreement."
>>34140002Don't sell the drawing then, or take influence from it and make your own.
