Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Warranty in next version of CC licenses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Warranty in next version of CC licenses
  • Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:24:23 -0500

>>>>> "GOB" == Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org> writes:

GOB> evan, you could simply add some conspicuous language to the
GOB> place where people post that says, "by posting here you
GOB> warrant that [blah blah blah]" or "by posting here i
GOB> understand that i promise [blah blab blah] -- whatever you
GOB> want. if they don't want to warrant their content, they don't
GOB> have to post. problem solved.

Yes, but there's no stipulation that that warranty information must be
carried with the re-distributed work. It's nice having it all in one
little package.

I guess I just don't see who benefits from removing the warranty
clause. It seems self-evident to me that if you are going to *license*
a work, you should at least have cleared the rights to *publish* that
work. Why bother having a document outlining the grant of certain
rights from people who don't have them in the first place?

Removing the warranty clause hurts downstream publishers and creators
of derivative works, in that it makes things more confusing and
time-consuming for them. Yet it doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

Actually, now that I think of it, I've convinced myself that I _do_
see some benefit: reducing the multiplier effect of free content
publishing. For example, I publish a short story on my personal Web
site and release it under an Attribution license. Universal Studios
takes this story and makes a major motion picture that grosses $200
million (with a kindly reference to me in the film credits).

However, it turns out that I just copied the whole thing from a 1972
collection of works by Erica Jong, and she sues Universal for the
whole $200 million. The warranty clause would seem to me to require me
to indemnify Universal for $200 million. If I'd never licensed it
under Attribution, the worst I could expect would be a takedown notice
from Ms. Jong's lawyer.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page