It's been hard to find the energy to get back to this discussion. At this point I just feel that you're misreading me on purpose. Or maybe I've been less clear before, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive.
poVoq Del Why wouldn't you be able to display a ND and SA image on the same website side-by side? Of course if you include an ND image you can't also put advertisements on the webside, but the SA image is totally unrelated to all that.
First of all, ND (NonDerivative) is not NC (NonCommercial). Yes, we were talking about NC, but I brought up ND as an example because it asks the same question that SA does: "is this a derivative work?"
If I write an article that incorporates images made by others, and let's be clear, in a way that does not constitute fair use/fair dealing, then my article is a derivative work of those images, and I need the original artists' permission to publish it. CC licenses gives me some permissions. But if it's an ND license, I don't have permission. If it's an SA license, I have permission, only if I publishe my article, using the same license. If there are two different SA licenses, I'm unable to publish my article respecting both. If I use CC BY-SA images, then my article has to be CC BY-SA, and not CC BY-NC-SA. But if I use CC BY-NC-SA, the article can't be CC BY-SA.
Now, copyright law doesn't care much about bits, bytes, files. It cares about creative works. It doesn't matter if the article is published on a website or on a magazine, it's still a creative work. In this case, a creative work derived from other creative works.
Yes, there are situations that allow you to put images with all sorts of licenses side by side. If it's fair use/fair dealing, of course. But also in situations that wouldn't be considered a derivative work. For example, if you go, "hey, take a look at my collection of CC licensed wallpapers". That is, from the point of view of copyright, not a derivative work. A collection, if anything.
All of the above is something I affirm with 100% confidence. Now with software and games, I know that line is to be drawn somewhere, but I find it a bit harder to find where. But right now, I'm like 85% confident that they can't mix licenses like that in SS14. I'd have to try real hard to see it as a collection, and not a derivative creative work. It's not just things put in the same package. The elements that compose the game are too interconnected.
I can imagine different scenarios where it would be a collection. Maybe a sandbox game that has just a bunch of objects that the player can toy with. Maybe like Garry's Mod? I'm not sure, I've never played it. Maybe a game that has levels that a player can choose from, each with a different license. But it really depends on the details of each situation, and, like I said, I have a harder time seeing where the line is with software. I'm just confident that what matters is trying to see what constitutes a single creative work, not bits and bytes and files.
For SS14, the game content, I think putting graphics and sounds together in a way that actually creates a new thing makes it a single creative work, derived from its assets. But I would consider the engine itself a separate thing, like a music player is separate from the song. And the lobby before the game starts shows a random background image a play a random song, and those things are not interconnected enough to make into a derivative work (there's no new thing created from them), but are a collection.
poVoq And an image even if meant to be a cover-image for a song is clearly not a derivative work.
I meant a cover version of a song. Same chords, same melody, same lyrics, but my guitar and my voice.
poVoq Intend is not a copyright feature 😅
What are you trying to say? When someone picks a license, they do so with an intention. They are telling us what we can or cannot do with their work.