Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Warranty Issue Revisited

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sal Randolph <sal AT highlala.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Warranty Issue Revisited
  • Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:30:55 -0500


On Feb 19, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:

Anyways, if you can't even claim that the work you're licensing is
your own, and that you have rights to publish it, you should probably
think twice about releasing it at all -- under Creative Commons, GFDL,
or whatever.

By licensing the work in the first place, artists are stating that it is theirs to copyright and license. I really feel that is sufficient.

From the music point of view, I just want to reiterate that making work with legally ambiguous samples puts artists in enough jeopardy as it is, and that I believe the warranties add too much additional legal liability. Part of the whole point of all this, politically speaking, is to move back towards a cultural situation where we have the rights to comment freely on our cultural icons (ie Micky Mouse) and use them in our creative speech. Adding liability for artists who work in these currently grey areas is antithetical to this idea.

The warranties won't and don't stop people from either sampling (imho, appropriate) or plagiarism (imo, inappropriate). People who do either still face potential penalties. All the warranties do is increase them.

From the point of view of blogs etc, it seems that the worst problems of people including plagiarized materials would likely be solved by simply removing the the material in question from the website. I don't really see that the warranties either prevent these potential problems or aid in their solution.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page