[cc-community] No Hard Copy Distribution Condition (Let's discuss)
Ocetalo
zelus.et.radix at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 18:33:47 EST 2008
Thaaa
*Perhaps, with the old licensing mentality, that linking of the author to
the
misuse of the work was warranted. With the granting of Free licenses, I
don't
think it is.
So, with BY-NC, I would not want to say, but with BY or BY-SA, I think the
freedom granted is a reasonable defence to those who would link the creator
to the misuse. It may take some time for this new mentality to filter
through
society though.
*
That's a point. I had not seen it that way. Society should be educated to
understand the gift of freedom as implying misuse as well. I second that.
*Personally, I am more concerned with my recorded voice and my photographic
and
videographic images and those of my wife and child. Much more so than my
words.
*
Me too, but the issue here are moral rights on words, opinions and ideas.
Misuse of personal information such as personal image and voice reaches
beyond mere moral rights violation to more serious rights. And there is some
people in the world more concerned about their words than about their own
lives.
***I am not sure I get this bit. If it can cause more harm, is it not the
fault
of the receivers and the organizational misusers and not the fault of the
author?
*
That's true. However, the problem is not whose the fault is, but the *misuse
* itself.
Until this point, I have reached one first conclusion from this interesting
discussion:
CC is fine for blogs, posts, "easy" expression, but any work deemed as
serious stuff and delicate matter which may offend the sensibilities of
certain people/group or bring unwanted, greatly damaging consecuences in
real world (the word has power) for the author and/or third parties, CC is
not recommended.
That's pretty good. CC is intended to make easy that what should be easy but
for some reason is not, isn't it?
On Feb 12, 2008 4:09 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 15:46:23 Ocetalo wrote:
> > Hi Andrew. I'm talking about things I don't really know, but I'll try:
> >
> > *Author's must have control over the fate of their works.
> >
> > >> they must? Why do you say that?
> >
> > *
> > Let's say you're a jew graphic artist (sorry I find no more accurate
> > example now) proud to be a jew. You license one picture under CC BY-NC.
> > Many people can get it, including some neo-nazi men. They misuse it. Who
> > cares? They're only individuals. Now, "Blood Dignity", a
> neo-nazi-oriented
> > organization, gets, prints and uses your picture for the cover of a
> > non-profit publication intended to support ideas which are against your
> > principles and insulting to jews. What stops them from? CC BY-NC allows
> > them to, without having to ask your permission. They *don't even have to
> > notify* you, so they do it literally behind your back and it is OK! Some
> > weeks or months later you notice it, but it's too late. Your reputation
> is
> > already damaged. You appear linked to an organization you would never be
> > involved with.
>
> Yes and no. Say for instance you had used BY-SA instead of BY-NC... You
> can
> instead point out the license you used and how you are willing to TAKE A
> RISK
> to your reputation and finances in order to promote FREEDOM for the people
> of
> the world and how some people choose to MISUSE that freedom but that once
> you
> grant the freedom, the uses the work is put to cannot be laid at your
> door.
> Just like we should not be blaming the government for the things said as a
> result of freedom of speach laws.
>
> Perhaps, with the old licensing mentality, that linking of the author to
> the
> misuse of the work was warranted. With the granting of Free licenses, I
> don't
> think it is.
>
> So, with BY-NC, I would not want to say, but with BY or BY-SA, I think the
> freedom granted is a reasonable defence to those who would link the
> creator
> to the misuse. It may take some time for this new mentality to filter
> through
> society though.
>
> > And what do you think the opinion of many jews will be? I
> > know it's a poor example but it gives some idea on my concerns.
>
> Personally, I am more concerned with my recorded voice and my photographic
> and
> videographic images and those of my wife and child. Much more so than my
> words.
>
> Taking words out of context has been so easy to do for so long it is not
> funny. We don't need to be listening only to quotes from people's
> opponents.
> (I know this can be tough.)
> >
> > * Literary works are more vulnerable to distortion than other kind of
> > works,
>
> ??? Can you explain why? Well, they may be, but why, with proper Free
> licenses
> and a proper understanding of what can be done with the same, should this
> negatively impact the creator?
> >
> > > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > >> Why do you claim that? *
> >
> > Because authors of literary works (I mean not only stories, but also
> > articles, essays...) are expected to be more involved with opinions
> > expressed in their writings thus more responsible for them. Written
> stuff
> > is always supposed to reflect the author's way of thinking more
> accurately,
> > so it's more likely to be taken seriously.
>
> Perhaps for stuff intended to be given more weight, but written stuff on
> the
> net today is more akin to casual conversation at times than to considered
> essays.
> >
> > * and also can bring more harm in case of misuse by organizations. *
>
> I am not sure I get this bit. If it can cause more harm, is it not the
> fault
> of the receivers and the organizational misusers and not the fault of the
> author?
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
> >
> > *
> >
> > >> Could you give us an example *
> >
> > There are lots! A few here:
> > http://www.caslon.com.au/mrcasesnote.htm
> > http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm
> > http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm#anchor222222
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/jurisdiction/Giganteedit.html
> > Something like this case is what I'm concerned about: *
> > Shostakovich v. 20th Century-Fox (*lost in US) or *Soc. Le Chant de
> Monde
> > v. **20th Century-Fox* (won in France)
> >
> > The other questions I left them open until I figure out how to answer.
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2008 5:23 AM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Author's must have control over the fate of their works.
> > > >
> > > >> they must? Why do you say that?
> > >
> > > Literary works are more vulnerable to distortion than other kind of
> > > works,
> > >
> > > >> Why do you claim that?
> > >
> > > and also can bring more harm in case of misuse by *organizations*.
> > >
> > > >> Could you give us an example
> > >
> > > By full copyright a previous agreement is needed prior to publishing,
> so
> > >
> > > > the author has a chance to prevent potential misuse by
> organizations.
> > > >
> > > >> Authors who cede their copyrights i.e. almost all authors who deal
> > > >> with
> > >
> > > the commercial publishing industry do not retain a right to give
> > > "previous" agreement before works are published. Publishers have a
> right
> > > to restrict copying whether digital of print, subject to exceptions
> and
> > > limitations.
> > >
> > > How does CC prevents misuse and violation of moral rights by
> publishing
> > >
> > > > and distribution? Or maybe it's not a CC task?
> > >
> > > What do you mean by prevent?
> > >
> > > On Feb 9, 2008 9:42 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > > > > jonathon wrote:
> > > > > > Eric wrote:
> > > > > >> Copyright has never given you (the author) the right to
> control
> > > > >
> > > > > such usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Moral Rights: An aspect of copyright that was unknown in the
> US,
> > > > > > until Ted Turner decided to colourize some Black and White
> movies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think this can restrict distribution and consumption of
> > > > > actual copies of the books, though. So it cannot control where the
> > > > > books are sold, who to, and what the purchasers then do with the
> > > > > knowledge they get from them.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could conceivably restrict anthologization of a CC-licenced
> work.
> > > > >
> > > > > (IANAL)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Rob.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cc-community mailing list
> > > > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cc-community mailing list
> > > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Rens
> > > Now blogging at www.aliquidnovi.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-community mailing list
> > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
> > !DSPAM:47b20685227461222944467!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080212/4182c208/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list