I’m interested in copyright licenses, especially open source/creative commons. It’s definitely a rabbit hole to sink into. Right now I’m reading up on a case https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Drauglis_v._Kappa_Map_Group,_LLC. It basically said, a CC-BY-SA will not be applied to a “collective work”, where your art/asset are used in a “compilation” of some sort. Like a photograph in an album, the photograph can’t be considered “derivative work” as long as it’s not being modified.
One question arises, is there a CC-BY-SA with better coverage which also includes collective works?
What does “better coverage” mean? A compilation or collective work is not a modification and is exactly what the license allows. Do you want hinder that? Can it be called Open Source, if you don’t even allow the distribution of your work? First it would be good to know what your goal is.
How about a license which will also make the collective work into the same license as the work itself? Coverage as in it could reach more in terms of copyleft-ness.
I struggle with the goal here. If you don’t want hinder anyone from using your work in collective work, then its basically already covered in the sense that it is allowed. I see only a reason to cover that, if you actively want to hinder your project from distribution in collective works. With CC-BY-SA the license allows the distribution of your work in any collective work.
Can you describe a specific situation as an example you want to solve?
It’s better for OP to explain, but from what I read they don’t mind it being used in a collective work, but they want to make sure that collective work will also be CC-BY-SA. What from what they read it is no guarantee.
So you mean like GPL to enforce same license when reused? I don’t think anyone using works licensed as CC-BY-SA is allowed to relicense it under a different license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/