Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Are CC license grants purely for copyright?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen AT iki.fi>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Are CC license grants purely for copyright?
  • Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:53:45 +0200

On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:32, Henri Sivonen wrote:

Can we use a CC license to permit derivative works to the extent
creating such a work would infringe on our copyright while being
silent on whatever decency rights the depicted people have? That is,
is it clear that the grants of the CC licenses are confined to
copyright and do not allow the kinds of derivatives that would
infringe on the rights of anyone depicted? Would we be granting a
license to something that is not ours to grant if we allowed
derivatives? (Examples of derivatives that I believe we don't have
the right to authorize include pornography, sampling the voices to
produce forged speech and use of people's likeness in advertising.)

Do we need the nc license element just in case?

I'm wondering whether my question was too stupid so no one bothered to answer or whether my question relates to a can of worms no one wants to touch.

Another scenario:
There are a lot of photos on Flickr that depict people and are licensed under CC licenses that permit derivative works. Presumably the photographers chose the licenses and have not asked what the people appearing in the photos think about it.

Is it clear that whatever grant a photographer is offering by the means of a CC license is limited to a grant under the photographer's copyright and it is up to whoever is exercising rights under that grant to make sure the derivative does not violate any rights of the people appearing in the photo? If someone takes such a picture and creates a derivative work that defames a depicted person, is it clear that the photographer is not liable for granting a right that was not his to grant?

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen AT iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page