Creative Commons Canada

["Philippe Gauvin" <pplepiew AT hotmail.com>]

Hello from Taiwan!

My name is Philippe Gauvin and I'm a recent law graduate currently "wasting time" travelling and teaching English in Asia. I'd just like to say that Russel raises a very good point since the very reason for Creative Commons is to provide certainty to the users, not the copyright holders. Copyright holders can choose not to use a CC license. I always thought of CC as an extension of the GNU license but for artistic works with certain limitations: "Use as you will respecting these terms: A) Attribution B) Non-Commercial and nothing will happen to you." etc.

Philippa Lawson said:

"I suspect that in most cases, artistic creators will not want to waive either their moral right to integrity of the work, or their moral right to be associated with the work.  (This may be less the case with creators of technical works like software.)

 

A good example that Russell might appreciate involves Michael Moore's recent decision to let people copy his new film, F911.  He wants it to be seen, and doesn't care much about being paid.  Attribution is not an issue because everyone knows he made the film.  But, does he want his opponents to take a copy of the film and insert their own critiques/rebuttals/etc. throughout the film?  I suspect not....(but that is exactly what some people in the USA are talking about doing, and without moral rights they may be allowed to do so in the US)."

 

Unless I'm mistaken Michael Moore doesn't own the distribution rights to F911, Lion Gates and IFC Films does. Of course, the documentary is already the highest grossing documentary ever so they might not complain about his opinion, especially after Disney got flak for censoring Moore's work in the first place (by informing Miramax not to distribute it last May) But assuming he did have those rights would he really need to exert moral rights?

 

If he used a Creative Commons license he could ask for a No-Derivatives license which would prevent any modifications to his work. The right of Attribution is also included in CC licenses. Even if he didn't use a CC license and only gave permission to people to copy his work, he never gave permission to people to modify his work or publish their own versions. There is a right to criticize/review though so maybe seeing a 60 Minutes report with extracts from the movie followed by rebuttals isn't totally out of the question? Admittedly this wouldn't be the whole movie though...

One point raised about moral rights is the right of integrity...I can't really say much about this since I guess if I painted something and distributed it with a CC license I would be a bit disappointed if it was slapped under a Neo-Nazi slogan on some propaganda site. The Eaton Mall case keeps popping to mind though and I worry a bit about seemingly innocent modifications being taken as an assault on the artists integrity and held against the copyright user who thought he could do what he want short of doing anything "distasteful".

Personnally I think adding a step to waiver moral rights could be helpful in attracting attention to the fact that moral rights exist though only for informing the creators (those who would choose the license.) A human readable Moral Rights tab is also a good idea:

Ian said:

"We still need a symbol for the 'moral right to integrity' and possibly a symbol for 'moral rights' in general. "

Dunno...a big "M" or maybe a swastika with a bar through it (like no-smoking signs, swastika instead of a cigarette)?

Cheers!

Phil

---

Enjoy 25MB of inbox storage and 10MB per file attachment  With MSN Premium  Get 2 Months FREE*