Development of Creative Commons licenses

[nono2sco <nono2sco AT yahoo.com>]

Thanks  for your response Rob.

I appreciate the fact that it is not legal advice I
was  really try to get a sense of how the CCL was
interpeted.  I have to say that after dealing with the
text of USC 17, DMCA,  Berne, etc it is wonderfully
straightforward.

I am not either site owner, but one thing that may
mitigate question #1 in terms of the 2nd site owner is
that the first site is so widely read that any effect
on the stock price will likely happen from that sites
publication and not the basically unknown 2nd site.

Part of the reason I posted this question is that the
examples on the CC site for commericial or mometary
gain were all very direct.  For example reselling the
actual work, charging a fee to view it, etc.

In this case it is less direct and even then only some
potential for income which would then somehow have to
be attributed to the second site and not the first.

Thanks again for the response,

nono

--- Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. You
> really should discuss this with a lawyer.
>  
> On Wednesday, January 05, 2005, at 04:50AM, nono2sco
> <nono2sco AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >1) Is the owner of the 2nd site violating  the
> >Non-Commercial  clause of the CCL because
> conceivably
> >his republishing of the negative articles could
> >influence the stock price of the company in
> question?
> 
> Possibly. The licenses say:
> 
> "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to
> You in Section 3 above in any manner that is
> primarily intended for or directed toward commercial
> advantage or private monetary compensation."
> 
> but I don't know how strongly this matches what's
> happening here.
> 
> >2) Is the owner of the 1st site placing additional
> >restrictions on the CCL-ed works by saying that a
> >person with an interest in the stock price is not
> >granted permission to reproduce them?
> 
> Yes. Since the license is the entire agreement, this
> is broken.
> 
> >3) The first site also states a requirement of
> >republishing any of the CCL-ed articles is that any
> >updates to article content be timely updated in the
> >reproduced version.  Is such an (additional)
> >requirement compatible or consistent with the terms
> of
> >the CCL Attribution, Non-Commercial 2.0 license?
> 
> No. Since the license is the entire agreement, this
> is broken.
> You could allow this with SA, but you can't require
> it.
> 
> >4) If a site clearly states on each page that it is
> >published under the CCL, with a link to the CCL-NC,
> >but has further restrictions to that content on a
> >policies page, is it bound by CCL-NC or the CCL-NC
> >plus any added policies? (The additional
> requirements
> >being those specified above.)
> 
> No. Since the license is the entire agreement, this
> is broken.
> 
> The relevent part of the license states:
> 
> "This License constitutes the entire agreement
> between the parties with respect to the Work
> licensed here. There are no understandings,
> agreements or representations with respect to the
> Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound
> by any additional provisions that may appear in any
> communication from You. This License may not be
> modified without the mutual written agreement of the
> Licensor and You. "
> 
> Do ask a lawyer, though.
> 
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250