Creative Commons Canada

[Russell McOrmond <russell AT flora.ca>]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Philippa Lawson wrote:

> Does the problem here have to do with applying the same rules to 
> artistic works as to technical works such as software?
> I.e. - Russell - do your objections apply equally to artistic works such 
> as sculptures, films, drawings, etc.?

  My objections about applying "prejudicial to the Original Author's
honour or reputation" to a commons applies to any type of work added into
a commons.  There is nothing special about software in the context of the
general legal needs of peer-production or peer-distribution.

  A few in this forum appear to be thinking in terms of protecting
Original Authors from follow-on creators/distributors/users, while one of
the purposes of the CC is to protect follow-on creators/distributors/users
from Original Authors (or non-creator copyright holders).

  If an author wants to be able to exert a right to restrict "material
distortion", then they need to disallow derivatives entirely.  They
shouldn't be allowed to subjectively allow some derivatives but not
others.  Having to know what the Original Author considers appropriate or
inappropriate outside of what is clearly marked as conditions in the
license defeats the purpose of the Creative Commons.


  If an author wants to be able to exert a right to "not associate the
Work with a product, service, cause or institution that is prejudicial to
the Original Author's honour or reputation;" then there needs to be some
sort of general disclaimer suggesting that the author(s) of a CC work are
not associated with any of the follow-on authors, distributors or users.  
The default needs to be "no association".

  No copyright holder should be able to effectively take works (fully or
partially) out of the commons by claiming that they disapprove of a
"product, service, cause or institution".

Curious: have the participants in this forum all read "free culture"?  
http://www.free-culture.cc/ The Creative Commons concept is specifically
discussed in the "Afterword" http://www.easylum.net/book/view/28


  To make a creative commons work it really does need to be an "all or
nothing" situation for the author who is contemplating adding their works
into the commons.  Please back up from thinking in terms of the existing
biases of the law, and watch the CC animations.  Then try to think of what
an author exerting "prejudicial to the Original Author's honour or
reputation" type thinking against a commons would do to the viability and
utility of that commons.


  One way to enable what you are looking for and keep within the creative
commons concept is to offer licenses which clearly document these
restrictions. CC licenses should pre-authorize activities under very well
defined and understandable conditions.  "And most importantly, they
express these freedoms in a way that subsequent users can use and rely
upon without the need to hire a lawyer." (quote from Lessig from the link
above). Where those conditions require communication with any author, or a
lawyer, the pre-authorization of activities is ineffective.

http://creativecommons.org/license/

  "With a Creative Commons license, people can copy and distribute your 
   work provided they give you credit -- and only on the conditions you 
   specify here."


  You will notice that there are licenses beyond the original 6 parametric
licenses that set out different (but still clear) conditions for
pre-authorized acts.

  Protecting the commons from authors coming back and claiming
infringement for activities not mentioned in those conditions is a
critical component of the Creative Commons.


Note: I really don't know how an anti-war person would be able to
articulate "may not be distributed/modified/etc by pro-war organizations".  
Is the Canadian Government a "pro-war organization"?  Maybe it is specific
departments?  Maybe specific branches within specific departments?  Who
decides?  Maybe someone wanting that type of unclear condition should
simply never try to add their work into a commons?

  The Michael Moore example you brought up is appropriate.  If Michael
Moore did not want his work made into a derivative work critical of his
message then he would never have pre-authorized derivative works.  He may
have allowed peer-distribution of the verbatim work, but would have needed
to use an *ND* license.

-- 
 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!