Creative Commons Canada

[Philippe Gauvin <pplepiew AT hotmail.com>]

If I remember correctly, it was decided that the right to integrity should be waived to handle precisely these types of complaints. If CC exists to get rid of the middleman, the right to integrity reincorporates the need to contact the rights holders for any uses if you don't want surprises down the road. In this case he has a claim as there was no attribution but I will keep arguing that the right to integrity has no place in a CC license. If authors want to keep it they can also refrain from using CC licenses...

International debate should be interesting.

Phil

---

> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:50:39 -0400
> From: andy AT creativecommons.ca
> To: cc-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [CC-ca] Moral rights in version 3.0
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I'm reviving this list in preparation for the move to version 3.0 of the 
> Creative Commons Canada licences, a process that will begin this Summer. 
> For those who don't know me, I'm Andy Kaplan-Myrth, one of the Joint 
> Project Leads for Creative Commons Canada.
> 
> Earlier this week, Michael Geist posted this news summary to his 
> Internet Law News newsletter:
> 
>  > CANADIAN PHOTOGRAPHER CLAIMS VIOLATION OF CC LICENSE
>  > A Canadian photographer is considering suing a Member of
>  > Parliament for using a Creative Commons licensed photograph
>  > posted on Flickr in campaign literature. The photographer
>  > says he wouldn't have allowed the MP to use his photograph
>  > in the first place because he disagrees with "her campaign
>  > and political viewpoint."
>  > <http://tinyurl.com/25jvha> [Kamloops This Week]
> 
> The photographer's perspective is on his blog:
> 
> > http://www.syldavia.net/weblog/2007/03/betty-hinton-vs-intellectual-property_23.html
> 
> Because of the way that photographer frames his complaint, it looks like 
> he asserts in part a Moral Rights objection to the MP's use of his work. 
> Speculation about that possibility led to discussion on another list 
> (CyberProf) about how the Canadian CC licences have handled moral rights 
> so far and how the version 3.0 licences handle these rights.
> 
> In particular, it was pointed out in that discussion that the Canada is 
> the only jurisdiction in which the right to integrity is waived. All 
> other licences preserve this right, as well as the moral right to 
> attribution of works.
> 
> As you may know by now, Creative Commons has released version 3.0. One 
> of the Internationalization (i18n) goals of the new licence is to 
> harmonize moral rights across the CC jurisdictional licences. The 
> general approach chosen by CC is to retain moral rights. See this 
> discussion paper in which the Canadian CC licence is singled out for its 
> approach to moral rights:
> > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80.93_Moral_Rights
> 
> Part of the process of porting version 3.0 to Canada will have to
> involve discussions about this issue. While we have not yet worked out a
> timeline for porting the licence, work will begin this Summer and I 
> invite  anybody who is interested in Canadian CC licences in general and 
> moral rights in CC in particular to contribute their comments here.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> -- 
> Andy Kaplan-Myrth, LL.B., M.A.
> Project Lead, Creative Commons Canada
> ------------------------------------------------
> email: andy AT creativecommons.ca
> web: http://www.creativecommons.ca
> ------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> CC-ca mailing list
> CC-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-ca

---

Get news, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Check it out!