Development of Creative Commons licenses

[nono2sco <nono2sco AT yahoo.com>]

Hi Rob,

Moral rights may prove interesting as it appears when
the US became a member of Berne in 1989 we didn't
really adopt article 6bis but relied on  17 U.S.C.
§106A (VARA) to provide what conress felt was the
equivalent.

Some good links:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

http://www.cyberlawsa.co.za/cyberlaw/cybertext/chapter2.htm

http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm

Makes for very interesting reading and it will be good
to see similar text make it into the CCL.

nono



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


> 
> Well we did try. :-/
> 
> The next one like this is probably going to be moral
> rights. Moral rights have their place, the same as
> Copyright. But it's certainly not in SA projects,
> where they could be as effective as trademarks or
> patents for torpedoing downstream use of licensed
> material. And unlike patents and trademarks, they
> have zero entry and maintenance cost. You get them
> whenever you put pen to paper, just like copyright.
> 
> I believe that iCommons would like the moral right
> of integrity to become a CC module, largely because
> in Germany (and France and Belgium and possibly
> other civil law countries I think) you can't waive
> your moral rights. iCommons certainly seem to be
> ignoring Lessig on this for the UK licenses.
> 
> Having integrity as a CC module kinda makes sense,
> because the right of paternity is already a CC
> module: BY. But integrity may be more like
> collecting rights in that it would make more sense
> to align integrity with the intention of the
> license: so integrity should accompany ND and
> possibly vanilla BY but not SA (i.e. you probably
> want integrity for a "market" economy and maybe for
> "free circulation" but not for a "gift" economy).
> 
> The television companies I've talked to or heard
> about who are considering CC are very keen to keep
> integrity in order to keep downstream control of
> work. Which is understandable, but shows how it will
> be used if it's an independent module.
> 
> I believe that most international CC licenses are
> following the iCommons position and asserting
> integrity, so CC-IN would have to be the only
> negatively-phrased CC module: that is, including IN
> would remove the integrity requirement, unlike every
> other module where including it introduces a
> requirement. Otherwise CC-3.0 won't be compatible
> with 2.0 .
> 
> I'm also worried that we'll see a "black hole"
> effect on work with integrity if there's any sort of
> backdoor to allow non-IN work to be used with IN
> work where integrity cannot be waived. 
> 
> Don't get me wrong: as an artist it's nice to know I
> have legal grounds for complaint if my work is
> printed badly or credited to the wrong person. But
> as someone who works with SA material, I don't want
> people objecting to my use of their work (or not
> using my work because they're worried I will
> complain) because of integrity.
> 
> I'd urge people to read up on moral rights if
> they've not encountered them much before. 
> 
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 



        
                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail