Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: CC licenses and "moral rights"

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Knupfer, H-Net" <peter AT mail.h-net.msu.edu>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: CC licenses and "moral rights"
  • Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:18:46 -0500

Greg London wrote:
Peter Knupfer, H-Net said:

These are fairly serious issues for scholars who are sharing documents
or putting up preprints that can be snatched and inserted into
anthologies in ways that distort the original work's meaning.


the CC license can have a significant chilling effect on the sharing of some
works -- especially culturally-sensitive or highly emotional materials.


Two strong assertions. Do you have any example?
Not a hypothetical example, but a real-world example
where Moral Rights somehow saved the day?

My current feeling towards moral rights is that they are
even worse than Fair Use from a gotta-go-to-court-to-sort-it-out
point of view.

I assume we're talking about more than an author being
able to demand their name be taken off of a derivative,
and more about an author stopping someone from distributing
a derivative that the author doesn't like.


I'm talking about a collective, not a derivative, work.

Context matters, and context is the essence of moral rights. It gives meaning to otherwise isolated information and affects the reputation and, sometimes, credentials, of a work's creator. Nor is this about the extent to which moral rights "saves the day." Moral rights, like fair use, is a euphemism for a set of attitudes about how one's ideas are germinated and used, and if people believe that such rights are not available to them, they will be disinclined to share. If, however, moral rights are available to them, they could be more inclined to share because at least they have recourse in extreme circumstances.

E.g:

-- the author of the best short defense of the Japanese forced relocation in World War II refused to permit its use in a second edition of a reader, because she felt the entirety tipped too much against her point of view. Under the CC license, she could not prevent its reuse in the collection.

-- Peggy Lipstadt has just withdrawn permission from C-SPAN to broadcast a lecture on Holocaust Denial because C-SPAN intended to "balance" it with a lecture by a Holocaust denier. Those seeking "credibility" for propositions considered absurd by the professionals and reasonable people desperately want these kinds of "problems in" recognitions.

-- Anti-apartheid activists who record oral histories of their participation in the struggle, find out that the tapes are being streamed from a website run by their former jailers from the old regime. Like the classic bait and switch to attract users to web sites, the creators of the web site are using the tapes to draw traffic to a web site that is positively repulsive to the interviewees. Under the CC license, what recourse do they have?

-- the author of a work in progress posts it to a paper server for a comment period, covered by CC BY-NC-ND. Another user incorporates the paper, with attribution, into an anthology to be given away online, and gets the credit for moving the original into full publication first. The original author's hopes of developing the paper into a chapter or section of an upcoming book are therefore influenced by this immediate reuse of her material. Moral of the tale: don't share works in progress.

In some cases, if the no-derivatives is in effect, the copyright holder might attempt to claim that such uses are indeed derivatives and therefore prohibited, but that's a stretch.

My problem in these examples, is not that the refusal of permission is justified -- Holocaust deniers will never listen to anybody, but the audience needs to see their views rebutted. But Jeffersonian rationalism is but a theory when stacked up against human nature. My problem is that the CC license could have a chilling effect on the willingness to publish and share in the first place, and that important works will not be available to the audiences that might benefit most from them.

regards

Peter




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page