cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: cc-nc second derivate (no sa)

From: "Todd A. Jacobs" <nospam AT codegnome.org>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: cc-nc second derivate (no sa)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:01:18 -0800

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:55:48AM +0100, Hans Fuchs wrote:

> Is this possible? If not, who is at fault?

The person "at fault" is the person who distributed a derivative work
without a copy of the cc-nc license under which they themselves are
licensed. The downstream users *may* be guilty of unintentional
infringement (lawyers can assert the strangest things), but it's
unlikely they could be held accountable for any deliberate infringement.

--
Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/

cc-nc second derivate (no sa), Hans Fuchs, 01/21/2005
- Re: cc-nc second derivate (no sa), Greg London, 01/21/2005
- Re: cc-nc second derivate (no sa), Todd A. Jacobs, 01/28/2005
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- cc-nc second derivate (no sa), Hans Fuchs, 01/21/2005