[cc-licenses] Moral rights, Attribution & Choice of Law
pcreso at pcreso.com
pcreso at pcreso.com
Sat Apr 14 00:17:18 EDT 2012
Hi Andres,
Some detail (hopefully not too much)...
Moral rights under CC apply well (generally) for creative works. I don't have any issues in that regard.
However, CC is pushing the same licences for data, without indicating the difference between legislated moral rights for data & for creative works. I do not regard this as a responsible approach, especially with CC4 being openly touted as being more appropriate for data, and the CC4 licence wording not addressing this issue to date.
As an aside: a data mashup can be based on some underlying data without presenting any of that data in the final product. This is also a situation very different from creative works. Data was used but is no longer there as explicit content. How does CC apply? Attribution is relatively straightforward, but what about inappropriate or misleading use?
In New Zealand the law is explained in this guide from the Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.nz/html/blob.php/Moral+rights.May2007.pdf?attach=true&document=339&filetypecode=1&fileId=105
The relevant section:
"Who has moral rights? Moral rights belong to authors of:
- literary works, including novels, screen plays, poems and song lyrics;
- dramatic works, including dance, mime and film scenarios or scripts;
- musical works;
- artistic works, including paintings, drawings, diagrams, maps, engravings,
etchings, photographs, sculptures and architectural works.
Moral rights are also enjoyed by directors of films made on or after 1 January 1995
(even though copyright is usually owned by film producers).
Creators of sound recordings and computer-related works have no moral rights under
the Copyright Act."
Data is regarded as computer-related works, and those who release datasets under CC enjoy no moral rights to protect against misuse or misrepresentation of them or their data. Very different for those releasing creative works. Where does CC warn of this possibility when suggesting their licence be used for data?
In Australia, moral rights afford the usual protection, from
http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/20373146284f39afed9ca39.pdf:
"Creators have the right:
- to be attributed (or credited) for their work;
- not to have their work falsely attributed; and
- not to have their work treated in a derogatory way.
...
This could include:
- distorting, mutilating or materially altering the work in a way that prejudices the creatorʼs honour or reputation; and
- in the case of artistic works, destroying the work or exhibiting it in public in a way that
prejudices the creatorʼs honour or reputation.
...
Moral rights apply to:
- literary material such as novels, screenplays, poems, song lyrics and journal articles;
- artistic works such as paintings, drawings, architecture, sculpture, craft work, photographs, maps and plans;
- musical works;
- dramatic works such as ballets, plays, screenplays and mime;
- computer programs; and
- cinematograph films such as feature films, documentaries, music videos, television programs and television commercials."
But NOT data. Also, in Australia, moral rights are considered "personal" and "individual" rights, and cannot be vested in institutions. Most data is released by institutions, not individuals. Again, where does CC responsibly explain this to potential users?
The UK Open Government Licence is often described as a CC compliant licence. Largely it is, but it includes some additions that cover these issues pertaining to data. They were deemed necessary, otherwise an actual CC licence could probably have been used. They affirm the moral rights of the data licensor, and place responsibilities upon the user. From: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
Data users must:
"...ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that
suggests any official status or that the Information Provider endorses
you or your use of the Information;
ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source; ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data
Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC
Directive) Regulations 2003."
The second requirement in particular effectively applies a moral rights clause to data released under this licence, which is missing in legislation. By suggesting users of CC licences that whatever they release under CC is afforded local moral rights protection I believe CC is misleading them. Until this is addressed, CC licences are not as applicable or suitable for data as they are for creative works.
There is a difference in law between creative works & data, and licences for data should be clear about this.
Cheers,
Brent Wood
--- On Sat, 4/14/12, Andres Guadamuz <anduril13 at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Andres Guadamuz <anduril13 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Moral rights, Attribution & Choice of Law
To: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2012, 12:17 PM
You have mentioned this before. Can you elaborate? Moral rights are
handled quite well in my opinion, the current wording covers all of
the national practices, this has been the subject of constant
discussion since the early licences, and the existing practice seems
to fit well in various jurisdictions.
On 13/04/2012 02:24 p.m., pcreso at pcreso.com wrote:
Moral rights are
described in a very misleading fashion, and the issues
regarding these as providing protection for data released
under CC licences need to be far clearer. Frequently there
are none.
In the US, Moral Rights only pertain to visual media. In
Australia moral rights can only be assigned to
individuals, not organisations, in New Zealand computer
related works are exempt. CC makes little or no attempt to
explain the distinction, & limitations of CC licences
for data.
Those who wish to release data under CC licences,
something CC is trying to encourage, need to be aware that
many countries have different laws covering data &
creative works, and that CC licences relying on local
Moral Rights legislation provide very different
protections.
--- On Thu, 4/12/12, Kent Mewhort <kmewhort at cippic.ca>
wrote:
From: Kent Mewhort <kmewhort at cippic.ca>
Subject: [cc-licenses] Moral rights, Attribution &
Choice of Law
To: "Development of Creative Commons licenses"
<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 9:08 AM
IMO, the overall direction of
this license looks to be shaping up
nicely. A few comments:
Moral rights
-------------
1. Substantive comment:
It's not clear to me that this provision moves us
anywhere different
from the status quo. It seems to only turn the
question of whether
moral rights have been violated into a question of
whether an act is a
"reasonable exercise" of the rights under the
license. Isn't this
essentially the role of moral rights in the first
place? Moral rights
set the threshold on whether a particular exercise of
a copyright
license or assignment is reasonable in light of the
author's personal
interests.
I would suggest leaving moral rights altogether
intact. Attribution and
non-association form part of the CC license terms
themselves, so are
unlikely to be otherwise violated. For other moral
rights such as
integrity and derogatory action, this is generally a
reasonable high bar
and I can't image would pose any significant sharing
hurdles (unless the
bar is much lower in some other jurisdictions).
Alternatively, if we do
insist on waiving moral rights, I suggest simply
waiving them entirely
to avoid any disputes about what constitutes a
"reasonable exercise".
2. Formal comment:
This wording took a couple of doubling-backs to
understand what it's
actually saying. To improve clarity, I suggest
striking out the two
embedded "however..." clauses and instead leading off
with "Only to the
minimum extend possible and necessary to allow You to
reasonably
exercise...".
Attribution
------------
3. The scope of "any reasonable manner" seems a bit
too broad,
especially given the importance and multi-faceted
purpose of
attribution. I liked the old "at least as prominent
as" provision,
though I can see how this can cause problems in some
contexts. How
about "any reasonably prominent manner", or even "a
reasonable manner
consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary
attribution for
the medium or means You are using".
New definition of to "Share"
-----------------------------
4. If we end up with no ports, this definition may not
be sufficient to
equally cover the intended activities in all
jurisdictions. For example,
in Canada, we have no "making available" right as of
yet and the right
to "communicate to the public" by telecommunication
arguably doesn't
cover one-to-one downloads through services such as
iTunes (an issue
which is presently before our Supreme Court). It
might be advisable to
insert an "or distribute" in there.
Choice of Law
--------------
5. There hasn't been much discussion on this, but I
think deserves
careful consideration in light of the move towards
internationalization. Given the different laws on
fair dealing,
copyright terms, and other aspects of copyright law,
it creates a lot of
uncertainty to simply leave choice of law to local
conflict of law
rules. I think something analogous to the U.K.
government license could
work well to tighten up certainty: "This licence is
governed by the laws
of the jurisdiction in which the Information Provider
has its principal
place of business, unless otherwise specified by the
Information Provider. "
Alright, that's all for now :)!
Kent
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
In consideration of people subscribed to this list to
participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0
development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the
cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20120413/9af9bc6d/attachment-0001.html
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list