Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.01 moral rights question and proposal

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: melanie dulong de rosnay <melanie.dulong-de-rosnay AT cersa.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.01 moral rights question and proposal
  • Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:32:42 -0400

Hi all,

My concern as CCi community member is to avoid exporting a moral rights standard in jurisdictions where there are no moral rights.
My concern as CC France legal lead is to ensure some legal security, ie propose licenses which don't imply that authorizing/creating derivative works can be a waiving/violation of moral rights (illegal for licensor/licensee in my jurisdiction).

As I pointed to CCi fellows when the discussion started on introducing moral rights clause in 2006, a possible solution to avoid this risk would have been to not address moral rights and leave national jurisdictions and courts decide. But other countries needed to have them addressed.

2.0 France version did not mention moral rights because a CC license, as any license or contract, applies after applicable law.
The french FAQ simply recalls that any claim on moral rights would be solved by the judge.

I agree that current wording is not very clear and Andy, I'm sorry your proposal has the same problem than the original: the sentence is too long and too long sentences can lead to comprehension (if not interpretation) issues.

To bring some clarity, what about adopting the same phrasing methodology we introduced for collective management?

For the avoidance of doubt:
i. In those countries which do not have moral rights, nothing happens.
ii. In those countries where moral rights cannot be waived, nothing happens.
iii. In those countries which have waivable moral rights or where it is possible to not assert them, the licensor waives or does not assert them

(and maybe as Ignasi suggested, lucky i and ii countries could thus stick with 3.0 number as the clause has anyway to be rewritten for each national jurisdiction ;-)

thanks,
melanie

Le 18 oct. 07 à 13:57, Andy Kaplan-Myrth a écrit :

Hi all,

I'm one of the joint Project Leads in Canada, where our Copyright Act 
includes moral rights. We are working on versioning to 3.x. I just made 
the recommended 3.01 changes to our draft, and that process raised some 
questions.

First of all, here is the resulting paragraph in my draft -- very 
similar to how the unported draft 3.01 clause reads:

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Original Author, in
those jurisdictions in which the moral right of integrity exists and
by operation of local law constrains the freedom to adapt or collect
licensed Work, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the
Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collective
Works, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other
derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial
to the Original Author's honour or reputation, or use the Work in
association with a product, service, cause or institution to the
prejudice of the Original Author's honour or reputation. Where
Licensor is the Original Author of the Work, Licensor agrees that
where the exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this
Licence (the right to make Adaptations) could violate the moral right
of integrity of the Original Author, the Licensor will waive or not
assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted
by the applicable national law, as long as You do not distort,
mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the
Work that would be prejudicial to the Original Author’s honour or
reputation, so as to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right
under Section 3(b) of this Licence but not otherwise.

There are two sentences. My reading of the first is that it restates 
moral rights that the original author already has (in those 
jurisdictions where they have them, that is) -- subject to any written 
agreement.

The second sentence says that where moral rights may be violated by the 
creation of adaptations, the original author/licensor agrees not to 
enforce "this Section", being the moral rights section of the CC licence 
just to allow non-moral-rights-infringing adaptations of the work.

So I guess I have two questions:

First, since the first sentence basically restates existing moral rights 
if any, could it be left out completely? What does it contribute? On my 
reading, it only contributes:
   a. the qualification that the clause only applies in jurisdictions
      with moral rights; and
   b. the possibility of a written agreement outside the CC licence.

Second, what does the promise not to assert "this Section" mean in the 
absence of a new right? Is this second sentence actually intended to 
provide a promise on the part of the Original Author not to assert their 
moral right of integrity (so as to enable the licensor to reasonably 
exercise their right to make adaptations but not otherwise)?

I'm tempted to reduce the entire provision to something like this:

<proposal>
f. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Original Author, in 
those jurisdictions in which the moral right of integrity exists and by 
operation of local law constrains the freedom to adapt or collect 
licensed Work, where Licensor is the Original Author of the Work and 
where the exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this Licence 
(the right to make Adaptations) could violate the Moral Right of 
integrity of the Original Author, Licensor agrees to waive or not 
assert, as appropriate, the Moral Right of integrity, to the fullest 
extent permitted by the applicable national law, as long as You do not 
distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to 
the Work that would be prejudicial to the Original Author’s honour or 
reputation, so as to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under 
Section 3(b) of this Licence but not otherwise.
</proposal>

Sorry to complicate the discussion with a new proposal!

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
Andy Kaplan-Myrth LL.B., M.A.
Manager, Law & Technology, University of Ottawa

------------------------------------------------
Faculty of Law : Faculté de droit
University of Ottawa : Université d'Ottawa
57 Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa, ON  K1N 6N5
Canada

t. 613/562-5800 x3206
f. 613/562-5124
------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page