[cc-licenses] CC 3.01

paola.dimaio at gmail.com paola.dimaio at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 02:59:47 EDT 2007


You cannot waive moral rights, but you can authorize a third party to
manipulate your work

When working on intellectual property contracts, we are often asked to
authorise the use of a portion or fragment of the work
which we grant by issuing a 'license' (license to do this and that)

so you do not deny your moral rights, you 'extend them'  - thats allowed

pdm

On 10/15/07, Fruggo <fruggo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm new to this list, so chances are that I'm saying things now that have
> already been said by others. I apologies for that. Please say so if my post
> is in anyway inappropriate.
>
> I'm responding to the request that was posted on the Wikimedia Commons
> mailinglist, about the CC 3.01 license. I would like to place some
> comments on the draft. For the record: I am a Dutch lawyer, but my specialty
> is not copyright law.
>
> In previous discussions about the orginal (3.0) version I was led to
> believe that it the license was meant to facilitate authors who couldn't
> wave moral rights. With the license, it was possible for those authors to
> put the work under a free license. The option of maintaining moral rights is
> important because in some jurisdictions it is not possible to put your work
> under a free license if that means that you give up your moral rights
> (because, legally, you can't give them up, what would mean that the license
> is invalid in that case). When I read the modified license text ( 3.01),
> it sais that when the jurisdiction aknowledges moral rights, the user of the
> work has to submit to those moral rights. That is more restricting than
> necessary: only when the jurisdiction makes it impossible for the author to
> waive moral rights, the user should have to aknowledge these moral rights.
> Else, the 3. licence is unnecessarily more restricting than (for example)
> the 2.5 version. On the other hand, the 3.01 version makes it possible for
> the author and the user to agree in writing that the author waives his moral
> rights. But that was the problem in the first place: the author can't (in
> some jurisdictions) legally waive his moral rights so he can't 'agree in
> writing' that he does. That would mean that the 3.01 version is as legally
> impossible as the 2.5 version (that is, in the jurisdictions where moral
> rights can't be waived).
>
> Another aspect I'm wondering at is what is allowed when there are more
> jurisdictions applicable. The article suggests that an author gains moral
> rights in some jurisdictions, where he hasn't got them in his own country
> (jurisdiction). This is caused by the part "jurisdiction in which the moral
> right of integrity exist". If that juridisdiction is the jurisdiction where
> the work is used, than suddenly moral rights have to be respected although
> in his own jurisdiction, the author might not have moral rights at all. I'm
> not sure that's the intention of the license.
>
> I hope these comments will be of use to you.
>
> Greetings,
> Fruggo
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20071019/82c78a69/attachment.html 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list