[cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA (International) 3.0 Draft 1 Comments
rob at robmyers.org
Sun Aug 13 16:51:45 EDT 2006
Notes by section:
Does "as authorised by copyright" mean "by relevant copyright
exceptions", or "by copyright and any relevent copyright
excceptions", or are exceptions part of copyright anyway?
I appreciate that "literary and artistic works" is a Berne-ism, but
the layperson is going to wonder whether audio works, video and so on
are covered. It might be worthwhile just explaining that all kinds of
creative works are covered.
*Please* clarify this if possible.
I assume that the concept of "adaptation" is a genericisation of
"derivative". But Berne uses the term "derivative", and "adaptation"
is listed as a kind of derivative. If this is a grey area how about
something like GPL-3's "a work based on the program", for example "a
new work based on the licensed work" or "a new work containing some
or all of the licensed work".
Surely for the purposes of this copyright license the "author" is in
fact just "the copyright holder"? Would it be useful to identify the
author as such rather than enumerating possible kinds of author?
The performer will presumably hold the copyright on the recording. If
they do not, they presumably don't have the right to license the
work. So is the "performer" just "the recording copyright holder"?
I cannot find any reference to "a phonogram" in Berne. Would "a
recording" not be more generic?
Why do we go straight from d to g? :-)
Does the "by them" mean the performer or the public? If the
performer, can they make the performance available under (eg) DRM or
payment (for NC...)? If not this limitation should be noted. If the
public, the public should not be able to demand a particular kind of
performance from the performer. :-)
Is the circus performer language designed to capture "work not
captured in a fixed form'? If so would this not be a better
definition to use, despite the fact that it is optional for signatory
countries. I admit that a malicious party is unlikely to employ an
army of clowns to try to circumvent CC licensing. :-)
I'm not sure this section gains more in completeness than it loses in
complexity but I don't know what the alternative is. :-(
*Please* simplify this if possible.
This is an old one but where is the idea of "high level license
*Please* explicitly mention Fair Dealing rights as well, ie "Fair Use
Rights / Fair Dealing Rights".
It might be better just to say "...for the duration of copyright on
the work" rather than say perpetual (which may be legally
problematic) then mention the term in parentheses.
This is good. It is DFSG-free and I've come round to this sort of
Wouldn't this right be implicit by virtue of sharealike?
Restrictions are bad. ;-) Responsibilities? Requirements?
Which precise URI? Perhaps "The official URI" or "The
"Impose terms", or "impose conditions whether legally,
technologically or by other means"? The latter form covers DRM as
well and makes the problems with DRM clear.
Is there such a thing as public monetary compensation?
Can this lead to copyright notices being removed? I appreciate that
copyright notices are not required by law and could break the right
of (dis-)attribution. But this still seems wrong as it may make the
provenance of licensed work harder to identify.
An international integrity right to match BY's international
attribution right. I'm pragmatic about this. ;-)
I agree that the GPL-3's softer, gentler termination clause style
might be a good model to consider.
Good to see Debian's concerns have been addressed here, the original
version did read strangely for a Free Culture license. :-)
More information about the cc-licenses