Cc-europe mailing list

[John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>]

Hi Gisle,

> Assuming you mean 1.e of CC BY, BY-ND, BY-NC and BY-NC-ND 3.0:

correct

> If you are the Original Author and haven't already *exclusively*
> licensed your Work to a publisher, what is it in Leistungsschutzrecht
> für Presseverleger that stops you from offering your news text (or
> any other text) under the CC public license of your choice?

The CC approach already has a huge problem with 
moral/personality/publicity rights, which tend to follow such diverse 
traditions around the world that it arguably is impossible to properly 
incorporate that into a standard license. The result is: They are left 
out of the licenses' scope and many licensors as well as licensees are 
not aware of this, producing countless cases of rights violations.

Any new related right left out of the license has a similar or - because 
of the economic relevance its holders might see in it - even worse 
effect: If I want to use CC content but cannot do so without running the 
risk of violating a whole range of IP rights not included in the license 
grant, the whole standard license idea is dead.

This applies not only to a potential press publishers right but also to 
such unusual things as the nordic catalogue right and others. The only 
possible reaction by CC would be to take aboard the CC license scope any 
(relevant) additional related right in a new license version, meaning 
more versions out there and a lot of content that never gets re-licensed 
under the latest one.

> > > We live in times where is becoming more and more obvious that
> > > technology is separating content and value creation.  Value are
> > > still being created from content, but remittance flows less and
> > > less towards the creator.  Instead, it flows towards aggregators
> > > that don't create any content, but takes content that others
> > > have created and finds ways of monetizing it.
>
> > well, I'd like to see any consistent definition of the "it" you are
> > talking about. Of course there is something flowing to the aggregators,
> > but to state that this is the same value that would rightfully otherwise
> > flow to creators (which ones exactly?) is bogus. And it isn't the least
> > anything "obvious".
>
> Maybe not.  However, we live in what I regard as difficult times for
> content creators and publishers, and I think we need to allow for
> some experimentation with value networks, including value networks
> incorporating statutory licenses as well as voluntary public licenses.

If by "experimenting" you refer to introducing the proposed press 
publishers right (?), which would first happen in Germany but then be 
adopted all over Europe and probably elsewhere, keep in mind that, at 
least in Germany, no IP right introduced has ever been abolished again 
later, not a single one.

> I do not see it as the task of Creative Commons to take sides for or
> against such  experiments, even if they are ill-advised and destined
> for failure (as long as they do not interfere with CC licenses).

As far as the CCPL's functioning is not impeded, I agree (see also the 
EDRI thread).

Best
John