Hello all
Here's a query that I've been wondering about - what point does a modified work bear such little resemblance to the original that the CC license no longer applies?
Is it the case that because the modifier has used the original work as a basis, regardless of the extend of the modification, the license will always apply? And if that's the case, then how can this be proven when the work in question has been modified to such an extent? It seems rather fuzzy (not to mention draconian) to require a modifier to give credit as a matter of course where their work owes something, however small, to an original CC-licensed work.
Here's an example. I often play around with the free CSS templates that are available at various sites on the net. I tend to get inspiration from the layout, and change the images and whatnot and generally alter the design to such an extent that it's not immediately obvious that it comes from the original template (including changing images, altering dimensions, text styles, and of course colour scheme). Often the reality is that the template was simply an inspiration for my finished product, and a foundation which I've altered for my own needs.
Until now I've always (of course) followed the terms of the CC license, which usually entails simply adding a link to the author's webpage. But I am interested in people's views on the limits of this as regards significantly, or completely, modified works.
