[cc-community] Germany - NC/CC violation - request for help

Peter Brink peter.brink at brinkdata.se
Wed May 28 18:21:17 EDT 2008


Robert Atwood skrev:
> rob at robmyers.org wrote:
>> Quoting "Robert Atwood (lists)" <lists at atwood.org.uk>:
>>
>>> [...] I would think that arguing that
>>> cropping to a different aspect ratio in a derivative work under the -sa-
>>> license fits in this category is rather far-fetched, does being a member
>>> of the 4:3 faction carry moral weight against the 16:9 faction?
>> If the cropping negatively effects the appearance of the work then it  
>> can negatively effect the artist's reputation. So it's not completely  
>> far-fetched.
>>
> I guess you could come up with an example where simply cropping appears 
> to reverse a political message, so I shall concede that point already, 
> are we talking about aesthetic alterations here?
> 
> If its a specific aesthetic choice, I believe it is well within what 
> -sa- should allow. If the original artist doesn't want that they should 
> not use -sa- type of license, they should use the -nd- type, and offer 
> to separately grant permission or some kind of collaboration with some 
> creative control for derivative works.
> 
>   I can see the association with political or the example given  of 
> 'adult entertainment' association being unwanted but a differing 
> aesthetic use of the material is what  -sa- is all about, isn't it?
> 
> Again, what do these artists THINK people will do when making derivative 
> works ,if not recasting the material with different aesthetics?
>   An artistic  quality judgment IMHO should really not be a violation of 
> those 'moral rights'. Must the  -sa- deriving artist  seek the original 
> artists' aesthetic judgment?  No way. If  so then it's totally useless 
> and might as well not exist.Even if the deriver , obeying all the terms 
> in the chosen -sa- type of license, makes what I think is a rubbish 
> artwork, I don't believe the 'moral rights' should allow me to protest 
> (legally) ... just because I don't' like it. Of course I can write a 
> scathing review, and/or make a re-derivation that illustrates my 
> feelings about it. IF the -sa-by- terms are followed it should be clear 
> who has done what, assuming (the -by- type of license was used.) Is 
> there an "anti-by" clause ? (you can use it but you MUST NOT attribute 
> me  :=) )
> 
> 
> Future critics might think the derivation is the greatest work of all 
> time, after all.
> 

Since the license does not interfere with moral rights the author 
remains free to act on any perceived violation of his moral rights. That 
the artist has allowed the publication of derivative works doesn't 
really matter. In most (all?) jurisdictions that grant moral rights, the 
right to create adaptions, without asking for permission, is also 
granted by law. The creator of the adaption gets the copyright to the 
adaption but he needs permission from the author of the work he adapted 
in order to be able to _publish_ his adaption.

In these jurisdictions issuing a CC BY-SA license only means that you 
allow an adaptor to publish his adaption. You do reatin the right to 
objet against that adaption if it violates your moral rights.

Objecting against an adaption of your work that you happens to not like, 
arguing a moral rights violation, is not likely to work. You must prove 
that your and/or your work's reputation is hurt by the adaption, and the 
burden of proof that you have to carry is not light.

/Peter Brink


More information about the cc-community mailing list