Creative Commons Canada

["Sheila Crossey" <sheila.crossey AT utoronto.ca>]

I agree with Russell that version 3.0 of the Canadian CC licence should 
treat moral rights in the same way as the previous 2.x version. I think this 
issue was thoroughly debated at the time and that the resolution was for the 
best. I don't think we should "follow the pack" as Russell puts it for the 
reasons he expresses.

But something that's worrying me regarding the current licence, is that the 
screen before you get to legal language states "Nothing in this license 
impairs or restricts the author's moral rights." Here is the pointer: 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ca/
Then when you click on "English" and read the full licence you see that 
moral rights (except attribution) are indeed waived. So it seems to me there 
is a contradiction here. Am I right? If so, can it be fixed?

Sheila Crossey

Senior Project Coordinator
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

voice: (416) 946-7820
fax:    (416) 971-2896
email: sheila.crossey AT utoronto.ca

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russell McOrmond" <russell AT flora.ca>
To: <cc-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CC-ca] Moral rights in version 3.0


> 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!"
> _______________________________________________
> CC-ca mailing list
> CC-ca AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-ca