[cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Oct 3 18:12:54 EDT 2007
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 10:11 am, paola.dimaio at gmail.com wrote:
> Rich, ( and drew)
> I am not saying it's easy and straightforward, but I am saying there
> must be ways of having it both ways (max freedom and max protection)
> and we should think about it
Well, I have never been bale to think of one and have never seen anyone else
I am all ears if someone has a well reasoned, workable proposal though.
One thing though. I don't think I have any moral or ethical responsibility to
keep people from using my creations for immoral or unethical purposes.
People are free and I do not wish to be their nanny or their dictator. They
will have to answer for their misuse of the works of other themselves.
This does not necessarily apply to people's images in my view though. Or at
least, I am more uncomfortable in this realm and behave differently.
> (sounds like the advert line for a deodorant now)
> It is true, you can see E as a subset of a religious world view,
> therefore difficult to represent and enforce uniformly , but I am sure
> that there can be simpler ways to agree on 'fair' usage extending the
> fairness to include, say, fundamental human rights, or a simple list
> of 'nonos'
> I can take risk, but I should prevent unnecessary exposure
Again. Not necessarily. And not, in my view, if limiting the exposure causes
more problems than it guards against.
> > But, to stay more focused on the licenses, is there a default
> > mechanism to revoke permission on a CC license?
> assuming there is (there should be) - its difficult to track usage -
> given that permission is not required
You can't revoke permission unless the license is violated as I understand
things. Did you mean something different.
It might be nice for CC to draft up some legal boilerplate forms for such
things in the various jurisdictions though.
Notices of license violation and what not.
> I personally like the
> > idea of taking the risk and letting the expression stay out there.
> > For one, it carries the default risk of being used by an outright
> > critic. Putting yourself out there with that default risk carries a
> > certain amount of accountability that raises the bar on expression.
> Imagine the photographs of a pretty child used to lurk pedofiles on
> some grim websites
> Legally, the misusage of the photo would not be persecuted until you
> take the trouble of making a claim against that
Well, as I think we discussed recently, unless you also supplied a model
release with the CC license. Such a use could be squashed with other laws.
But... I do think we will need laws adjusted to reach the full potential that
we can achieve with Free licenses.
> (and find them, and track them down, then prove that you did not quite
> intend the license for that , etc). Law enforcement agencies are
> concerned enough about children abuse, the worry about the wrong usage
> of a photo to gain commercial advantage would be secondary I suspect-
Right, and they should be. But are you saying such use is legal? And you want
to stop it via your copyrights?
> > While I joke about the extensive metadata required for a +E, there
> > actually is an established option.
> > http://www.icra.org/label/
> nice - but not sure that would solve my issue
> sorry if this conversation is becoming a little circular and boring!
> at least we are talking about it -
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses