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

Robert Atwood lists at atwood.org.uk
Thu May 29 09:52:50 EDT 2008


Peter Brink wrote:
> Yuval Levy skrev:
> [snip]

>>
YL>> So if I understand correctly, if the reprojection make the horizon 
wavey
YL>>   so that it looks that I do not know how to properly take a panorama
YL>> shot, I can sue the adaptation as violating my reputation of somebody
YL>> who can get his shots straight?
>>
> 
PB> I would say no. You cant's sue someone for adapting your works so that
PB> your skills look bad. You could sue someone if they adapted your 
work so
PB> that people might think you had extreme ideas or views, for example by
PB> using your picture in an poster for a fascist political party.

My common sense agrees with Peter's comment, that specific example 
doesnt' sound to me like they're violating your "moral rights".

  I would just add that under the -by- part of the license, I think you 
should be able to request a manner of attribution which makes it 
absolutely clear that the wavey work is theirs, derived from yours but 
not in fact your work, and makes it easy for the audience to find your 
original work to see for themselves what your original intention was.

In addition you may indeed according to the Canadian version at least, 
insist that the 'attribution' be Anonymous. If you'd rather disassociate 
yourself from the waviness , then that may be a route for you to take!
See section 3 (ii) of the Canadian English cc-by-nc legal code:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
  3)  ii. If applicable, You must respect the Original Author's wish to 
remain anonymous or pseudonymous.

All other moral rights are waived. This means the Original Author is not 
reserving the ability to prevent downstream creators from engaging in 
material distortion or modification of the work, including, but limited 
to, associating the Work with a particular product, service, cause or 
institution.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It seems, from the articles mentioned by Peter, as though the waiver 
might not apply in EU jurisdiction though, it only mentions France 
specifically and Germany might be different,  that's for knowledgeable 
lawyers to figure out! It says that they may be waived in Canada though.


YL>> Bottom line: if there is money involved, they should pay.

That's not what the -NC- licenses say. The (English language ones I've 
looked at , sorry I dont read German) clearly say :

(from the Canadian English one again ... similar phrase in each other 
one I've looked at... )

""""""""""""""""""""""""""
4b) ...that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial 
advantage or private monetary compensation...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That is quite different from 'no money ever changing hands', you don't 
need to be a lawyer (and, as mentioned before, I am not one... ) to see 
that, do you? If there's "private monetary compensation" but it is not 
the "_Primary_" intention, then it would be ok according to this license.

I think hiring someone to build the website falls in that category, 
similar to the often quoted example of taking the master copy of a 
written work to a commercial copy-shop and getting them to run off a 
copy for me on one of Mr. Xerox's nice machines, instead of hand-copying 
with a pencil I made myself from a charred grapevine, by rubbing sticks 
together to get a flame,  onto some scraped banana skins that I picked 
myself from trees that grow in the wild ;-)


I've no knowledge of precisely what the test of whether it's "Primary" 
or not should be though.

IANAL,
Robert






More information about the cc-community mailing list