Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-ca - Re: [CC-ca] Moral rights in version 3.0

cc-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Canada

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Russell McOrmond <russell AT flora.ca>
  • To: cc-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [CC-ca] Moral rights in version 3.0
  • Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:05:37 -0400

Andy Kaplan-Myrth wrote:
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.

I think my contribution is in the archives, but I believe that the Commons Deed needs to match the legal language, or the licenses have little value. Given the commons deeds are authored in a country that doesn't explicitly have "Moral Rights", and most specifically the Right of Integrity, I believe it does a dis-service for any country with moral rights to not do one of:

a) Use a different commons deed that clarifies the moral rights retained by the author (possibly separate from copyright holder).
b) Require a waiver of moral rights other than the right of attribution.

Having a license that says you are allowed to use a work and make derivatives, except in ways that require you know the author (effectively needing to get permission) isn't a very valuable license at all. I find it very frustrating that there are counties that haven't adequately dealt with this issue, but I hope that Canada won't just follow the pack.

As to the Kamloops photographer, I don't know that this is a moral rights issue. He clarified that if permission was asked for that it would not have been granted on moral reasons, but that is different than the moral right of integrity. It is an answer to those who think that his objection is only a matter of money..

An Attribution-ShareAlike license was used, and clearly this publication was not in the same license and thus was a violation unless additional permission were granted (which the author clarified they wouldn't have offered).

Cheers,
Andy

--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page