[cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use
Rob Myers
rob at robmyers.org
Sun Sep 30 11:15:42 EDT 2007
Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> Jonathon wrote:
>> Copyright, or even enforcement of copyright is not the issue. The
>> major issue is whether or not Virgin should have had model releases or
>> not.
>
> I totally agree. However, the point I m trying to make relates to the
> allegation of the claimant that he was misinformed regarding the meaning of
> the term 'commercial'
>
> "to adequately educate and warn him . of the meaning of commercial use and
> the ramifications and effects of entering into a license allowing such use."
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680
>
> All I m saying is
>
> (a) that the more we are going to have non-professional creators, the more
> we will have to deal with legal issues that normally would have been issues
> involving only professionals.
> (b) the practice of introducing terms [e.g. commercial/ noncommercial] that
> are not recognized or clearly defined by Copyright or other national laws is
> prone to cause legal disputes
>
>> Model releases are irrelevant to copyright law.
>> A future CC license that contains a "model release" clause would, by
>> definition, be incompatible with prior licenses. None the less,
>> material under existing licenses could be converted to a future
>> license, by a future user, despite that incompatibility.
>
> IMHO the "model release clause" should be in included in the next version of
> the CC licences, though I m not sure how the incompatibility issue would be
> resolved.
If a model release warning was included that just clarified that such
issues exist, like with Moral Rights, this wouldn't be a compatibility
issue. If the licence placed stronger constraints on the user than exist
in law genrerally then this would be both a compatibility issue and a
very bad idea.
So IMHO model release *requirements* should *not* be in the license.
Model releases are an educational problem not a license language
problem. There are many more issues that the license doesn't cover:
trademarks, patents, trade secrets, personality and publicity rights,
hull designs, seed rights, etc., etc. . What should be in the license
(and on the license deed, and in the FAQ) is a general warning that you
need to make sure that you have all the rights you need and that the CC
license is only a copyright license.
- Rob.
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list