Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [CC-Europe] CC advocacy / IGEL

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>
  • To: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] CC advocacy / IGEL
  • Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:41:42 +0200

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page