[cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use

wiki_tomos wiki_tomos at inter7.jp
Sun Sep 30 11:52:56 EDT 2007


Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

>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.

I think that there is a warning that lawyers are supposed to be able to 
understand. (But being a non-lawyer, I could be wrong). 


Some might have pointed this out, but the -1.0 licenses did include some 
rights clearances. After version 1.0, only the warranty disclaimer type 
of provision is left at the corresponding part. 

Here is a quote from CC-BY-1.0's "5. Representations, Warranties 
and Disclaimer"

--quote--
   a. By offering the Work for public release under this License, 
Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's 
knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
         i. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to 
grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise 
of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to 
pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other 
payments;
         ii. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, 
publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third 
party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious 
injury to any third party.

--end of quote--

   
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode



>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.

The departure from the warranty provision quoted above is understandable in 
my opinion. After all, the licensor might or might not be aware of 
the clause, and the rights might or might not be cleared. After all, 
they are amateurs. So I am not sure how reliable their warranties are. 

Compared to that, an explicit choice made by the licensor to 
signal that rights are cleared is a lot better. So an additional 
license element is better than a warranty. 

But I think the idea behind the departure from this warranty 
was that some third party can come and provide warranty 
(for a fee, for example). Such a service have not happened I suppose. 
Still, that would be a better course of development than an additional 
license element. 

Anyway, I wish there will be some solution to this. 

The content must be freed from people's rights to be freely usable. 
And what we want is freely usable works, not just works free from 
licensors' copyrights. But in while that becomes a reality, 
we have to learn what kind of rights are potentially related to a 
use of a CC-licensed work. FAQ on this matter is very good resource 
for many concerned non-lawyer users, in my opinion. 


By the way, I thought, you, Rob, agreed that free content 
should be free of many different types of rights. Discussion 
below is what I managed to remember. 

http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129#Scope_of_the_rights_covered

Best, 

Tomos



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list