Creative Commons Canada

["Ian" <ian.kerr AT utoronto.ca>]

Greetings, 
   
My name is Ian M. I am a research fellow at CIPPIC and I am assisting
Professor Bornfreund with the Canadian Creative Commons (CCC)
initiative. 

Regarding moral rights, we have decided to reserve an author's moral
rights in all CCC licenses.  

Creative Commons is a creator-centric licensing scheme.   Its primary
purpose is to satisfy the needs and wants of creators.  CC licences also
benefit users and society, and we want to maximize these benefits as
much as possible.  But, the users come first. 
The bottom line is: the Canadian Creative Commons will not automatically
waive a creator's right without concrete evidence that this is desired
by the majority of creators. 

We could give the author the choice to waive the moral rights of
integrity and attribution and we may do so in the future. 
However, the licence could be broken up even further, just in terms of
moral rights.  For example:
1. Does the author want to waive integrity in terms of mutilation?
2. Does the author want to waive integrity in terms of association?
Also, there are many other areas (outside of moral rights) where
legitimate choices are denied. For example:
1. The choice to allow only derivative works and not verbatim
reproduction is not available
2. The choice to break up the other grants in 3(1) is not available

Where do you draw the line between enhancing licensor choice and keeping
things simple (i.e. easy to maintain and understand)? 
The line should be draw at a certain level of licensor demand.  If there
is significant demand, by creators and users, for the capacity to waive
moral rights, then this capacity will be added.  This is the stance
taken by the Americans in requiring attribution in all licences.  This
is the stance taken by the British and Australians in reserving moral
rights in all licences

There are many other issues concerning the CCC licences that should be
discussed.  We don't want to be consumed on this point about moral
rights. 

For more information see posts:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-ca/2004-July/000005.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-ca/2004-June/000003.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-ca/2004-June/000001.html




Ian M






-----Original Message-----
From: cc-ca-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-ca-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Russell McOrmond
Sent: July 8, 2004 11:47 AM
To: cc-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RE: [Cc-ca] Response to Sheila Crossey

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Ian wrote:

> The right to the Integrity of a work is important for CC licences
> because licensors really don't know who is downloading their work (it
> might a distasteful organization).  Whereas, if creators are selling
> rights, they can exercise more control (i.e. not let distasteful
> organizations buy their work in the first place). 

  I think this is being looked at in reverse.  CC licenses should be
able
to create certainty for those *using* the works, not just the creators.

I license my works under the US CC, and when I use US-CC licensed works
I
assume I never have to worry about extremely subjective things like what
the creator may consider to be a "distastful organization".

  I believe that if "Integrity of a work" is left intact, that CC-Canada

licenses will not be used in favor of US-CC licenses which users would 
hope (and probably incorrectly assume) did not have "integrity of a
work" 
left intact.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Petition for Users' Rights, Protect Internet creativity and innovation
      Canadian Election 2004: http://digital-copyright.ca/
 Find out where parties and candidates stand on important Tech issues!
_______________________________________________
Cc-ca mailing list
Cc-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-ca