Discussione delle licenze Creative Commons

[pinna <pinna AT autistici.org>]

sulla lista internazionale cc-licenses e' iniziato un thread che
tocca anche le differenze esistenti tra le legislazioni degli USA, del
canada, dell'europa etc. in merito a paternita' / "moral rights".

io stavo per disiscrivermi da cc-licenses. 
qui su cc-it ci sono almeno un paio di persone che la leggono sempre?

intanto inoltro qui i messaggi che mi sono arrivati finora, se qualcuno
si interessa particolarmente alla questione puo' continuare a leggere il
thread negli archivi:
  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/

ciao
pinna


----- Forwarded message from cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org -----

Date: Wed,  6 Oct 2004 12:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: cc-licenses Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Send cc-licenses mailing list submissions to
        cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        cc-licenses-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-licenses digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. IN? (Rob Myers)
   2. Re: IN? (Evan Prodromou)
   3. Re: IN? (Rob Myers)
   4. Re: IN? (Gottfried Hofmann)
   5. Re: IN? (James Grimmelmann)
   6. Re: IN? (Rob Myers)
   7. Re: IN? (Rob Myers)
   8. Re: IN? (James Grimmelmann)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:17:10 +0100
From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
Subject: IN?
To: cc-licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <AF29D3F0-1724-11D9-B14B-00306590A6B6 AT mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

An Integrity (moral right) license component to complement the 
attribution component?

"The right of integrity also protects creators from having their works 
associated with products, services, causes or institutions that would 
harm their honour or reputation. In Creative Commons-speak this is 
called the INTEGRITY licence element. Note: This element is currently 
being proposed and is not yet available."

http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/moral-rights.html

- Rob.



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:09:39 -0400
From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <1097042979.22429.84.camel AT bad.dynu.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 00:17 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:

> "The right of integrity also protects creators from having their works 
> associated with products, services, causes or institutions that would 
> harm their honour or reputation. In Creative Commons-speak this is 
> called the INTEGRITY licence element. Note: This element is currently 
> being proposed and is not yet available."
> 
> http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/moral-rights.html

Wow. That's really, really stupid. Who the hell thought that one up? 
It's a revocable license, which is bad enough, but also a license that
can be revoked at whim. "You are entitled to use this work in any way
you want, except if it bothers me, in which case I can sue your ass real
hard. Enjoy this work as you quiver in fear."

This should just be called the Creative Commons Thoughtless A-hole
License and be done with it. Whoever even proposed that should be
ashamed of themselves. I'm embarrassed that anyone would even think that
this was a donation to the creative commons in even the slightest way.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/attachments/20041006/3b7de3e1/attachment-0001.bin

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:51:01 +0100
From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <1190452.1097052661160.JavaMail.robmyers AT mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

IANAL, TINLA.

On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 07:10AM, Evan Prodromou 
<evan AT wikitravel.org> wrote:

>Wow. That's really, really stupid. Who the hell thought that one up? 

The Berne convention. You get two moral rights: Paternity (attribution), and 
Integrity (the right to object to treatment of your work). IN would 
simulate/manage Integrity much like BY simulates/manages Paternity.
 
In countries with strong Moral Rights legislation (notably Canada? and 
Europe), you have these rights automatically. You can waive them in Canada? 
and the UK, but they are inalienable in Germany IIRC.

So this isn't some crazy idea that CC have come up with, it's a reality of 
international copyright law that needs dealing with. It's good that CC are 
tackling this.

>It's a revocable license, which is bad enough, but also a license that
>can be revoked at whim. "You are entitled to use this work in any way
>you want, except if it bothers me, in which case I can sue your ass real
>hard. Enjoy this work as you quiver in fear."

That's how it works, yes.

I've flip-flopped on this one a bit, because it's a moral right (as in "some 
rights reserved"), and it may scare people if they have to waive their moral 
rights. I also had a case of someone mis-displaying one of my CC'd images 
recently, which Integrity would have short-circuited if a polite email hadn't.

But Moral Rights do look rather like land-mines on the commons. 

- Rob.


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:49:38 +0200
From: Gottfried Hofmann <toddd AT mypse.goracer.de>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <4163CDC2.1050608 AT mypse.goracer.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

It seems like "donations" to the creative commons are usually new 
restrictions.


> This should just be called the Creative Commons Thoughtless A-hole
> License and be done with it. Whoever even proposed that should be
> ashamed of themselves. I'm embarrassed that anyone would even think that
> this was a donation to the creative commons in even the slightest way.


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:55:24 -0400
From: James Grimmelmann <james.grimmelmann AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <b558518004100606554995fa06 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/ says

"*Please note that the Canadian creator moral right of attribution is
retained while the right of integrity is expressely waived in all
versions of the cc-ca licence 2.4. To learn more about the moral
rights automatically granted to Canadian creators, we encourage you to
read our Moral Rights FAQ.*"

The FAQ is not so clear on this point, but from what I can tell
browsing the public web pages, the IN appears to be only an element
under discussion -- and one that was rejected for purposes of the
licenses available through CC.  If you go through the license picker
and choose "Canada" as your jurisdiction, you get a license that
explicitly waives all moral rights of integrity.

James

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:09:39 -0400, Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org> 
wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 00:17 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> 
> > "The right of integrity also protects creators from having their works
> > associated with products, services, causes or institutions that would
> > harm their honour or reputation. In Creative Commons-speak this is
> > called the INTEGRITY licence element. Note: This element is currently
> > being proposed and is not yet available."
> >
> > http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/moral-rights.html
> 
> Wow. That's really, really stupid. Who the hell thought that one up?
> It's a revocable license, which is bad enough, but also a license that
> can be revoked at whim. "You are entitled to use this work in any way
> you want, except if it bothers me, in which case I can sue your ass real
> hard. Enjoy this work as you quiver in fear."
> 
> This should just be called the Creative Commons Thoughtless A-hole
> License and be done with it. Whoever even proposed that should be
> ashamed of themselves. I'm embarrassed that anyone would even think that
> this was a donation to the creative commons in even the slightest way.
> 
> ~ESP
> 
> --
> Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 
> 
> 
>


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:11:10 +0100
From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <3230160.1097071870180.JavaMail.robmyers AT mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 02:55PM, James Grimmelmann 
<james.grimmelmann AT gmail.com> wrote:

>If you go through the license picker
>and choose "Canada" as your jurisdiction, you get a license that
>explicitly waives all moral rights of integrity.

Oh yes. Now that's strange, Boing Boing was saying it was optional:

"The only fly in the ointment for me is this: I really wish they'd set up the 
licenses so that they constituted a blanket waiver of Moral Rights, but I 
can't fault them for making it optional."

Most odd. But good to have a precedent for the CC-UK licenses (my home 
region).

- Rob.


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:18:56 +0100
From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <16753706.1097072336180.JavaMail.robmyers AT mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 03:11PM, Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> 
wrote:

> optional

Possibly the part "Except as otherwise agreed by the Original Author, the 
Moral Right of Integrity associated with the Work being licensed is expressly 
waived." 
So I can agree that my Integrity is very much *not* waived. Ew. Am I reading 
that right?

- Rob.


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:15:54 -0400
From: James Grimmelmann <james.grimmelmann AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IN?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <b5585180041006081515b2ed1d AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

That language is baffling to me.  I agree with you that having it
there effectively negates the moral rights waiver as to integrity. 
But it doesn't make any sense to have it there: it makes that entire
clause (4d) into empty words.

The only reason I can see to have such language is that it's a
drafting error -- it's an echo of the words in (4c), where they are
usefull meaningful.

If I'm wrong about that language, and the goal really was to insert
something like an IN license element, this strikes me as an awful way
of doing it -- better to have one version that's an explicit waiver
with no exceptions, and one version that has no waiver at al (perhaps
subject to an "except as otherwise agreed" clause)

James


On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:18:56 +0100, Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 03:11PM, Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > optional
> 
> Possibly the part "Except as otherwise agreed by the Original Author, the 
> Moral Right of Integrity associated with the Work being licensed is 
> expressly waived."
> So I can agree that my Integrity is very much *not* waived. Ew. Am I 
> reading that right?
> 
> 
> 
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


End of cc-licenses Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1
******************************************

----- End forwarded message -----