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: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:36:47 -0400

Le 18 oct. 07 à 23:11, paola.dimaio AT gmail.com a écrit :

Hi Melanie

The french FAQ simply recalls that any claim on moral rights would be solved
by the judge.

When I asked what advantages does cc have over any other copyright
license, I was answered that it avoids the author having to pay
expensive lawyers fees to draft licenses. I think in your sentence
above you imply that we have to go to court to assert a basic
statutory right. It does not sound right Judges and barristers are
much more expensive than lawyers :-).

you can solve a conflict through negotiation, or at court



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

I think the above is fine in principle. except that 'have moral
rights' 'nothing happens' need to be defined with more precisions
(using appropriate legal terminology )

of course, this was not intended to be legal phrasing!!

in those countries where the copyright law does not include explicit
and statutory provisions for ....moral rights... specifically blabla
etcetera

However,  the Berne Convention, is universal rule in international
copyright law, which means irrespective of whether moral rights or not
are contemplated by local legistlation,  when it comes to
international copyright (when the work is used in another country)
moral rights exist, and cannot be waved. But a license can simply
state that author grants specific permission so and so,(to manipulate,
change and otherwise modify and transform the work) moral rights
notwistanding.

Somehow I see lawyer getting more business  cc notwithstanding

cheers
PDM


(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




_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list




-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page