Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Legal Questions on CC validity and enforceability

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dana Powers" <dana.powers AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Legal Questions on CC validity and enforceability
  • Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:43:23 -0800

I'll take a stab, although I'm not officially a lawyer yet, so...

On 3/7/07, Konstantinos Stylianou <stiliamail AT yahoo.gr> wrote:
After having done some research, there seem to be two points still
remaining unanswered. The first one relates to the validity of the CC
licenses with regard to para 204 of the US Copyright Law, which mandates
that an IP license should be made in writing. Since a CC license is never in
writing (eg. no electronic signatures are involved), does this mean that
they are invalid?

17 USC 204 covers transfers of copyright ownership, not all licensing
arrangements. CC licenses do not fall under this because, among other
things, the licensor retains ownership of the underlying copyright.
I.e., CC licenses give "permission" not "ownership."

My second point has to do with the nature of the CC licenses and in
particular whether the CC licenses are a form of a web-wrap license, which
have been deemed unenforceable by numerous US Court judgements like
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. U.S. Dist. (C.D. Ca., 2000),
Pollstar v. Gigmania, 170 F.Supp 2d 980, Specht v. Netscape Communications
Corp., 150 F.Supp 2d 595. Since the CC licenses have not been challenged in
US Courts their enforceability under US law is still unclear. Though a dutch
court upheld a CC license, it must be noted that the dutch court completely
disregarded the issue of the CC licenses' nature.

I'm not as sure about this, but my gut says that because the result of
an unenforceable license is copyright infringement by the licensee
(absent fair use or other defenses which make the license moot in any
case), the licensee is usually in the position of arguing that the
terms are enforceable. This is the opposite of the web-wrap cases
where the end user is the one arguing that the contract terms are
unenforceable. A CC licensor might argue that the terms are
unenforceable (because they change their mind after licensing?), but
the web-wrap/adhesion/notice arguments don't apply nearly as well
because the CC licensor is the one making the initial licensing
decisions. There may be room for a new argument - that the CC
licensor is not fully aware of the terms of the CC license she is
choosing for her work - but that seems like a stretch.

Hope this helps,
Dana




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page