Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:07 pm, Greg London wrote:
> Peter Knupfer, H-Net said:
> > Greg London wrote:
> >> I know of no real-world case where Moral Rights were used.
> >
> > Used how? They're "used" all the time if someone refuses permission
> > because she believes the use will damage her reputation.
>
> You mean "retract" permission, don't you?
> The author gave permission by using a CC license.
> But then the author retracts permission for a
> particular work after they see the end result.
>
> That is how "Moral Rights" work, isn't it?

I am ignorant of moral rights in practice, but from what little I have read 
and examples I have seen quoted, they can go pretty far. For instance, after 
finding out what little I have, it seems to me that one possible example of 
their use is:

I own a Rembrandt, I buy a modern work from a living painter and hand them 
both in the reception area of my company. The living painter can object to my 
hanging his painting next to the Rembrandt.

They can give the creator rights over physical items of art even after they 
have sold those items.

Could someone who actually knows, please comment and explain if these ideas 
are in line with moral rights and if not, where I go wrong?
>
> If it's just "refuse" permission, then keep the work
> "all rights reserved", grant permission to specific
> projects you approve of, and refuse permission to the
> anti-holocaust group.
>
> I'm picturing a rabbit trap all of a sudden.
> A box with a carrot under it. A stick holding
> the box up, and a string that goes back to the
> author's hand. If the author likes the result,
> no worries. but if the author doesn't like the
> result, they pull the rope.

There you go and why would a community member invest significant time and/or 
money in such a situation?

If moral rights cannot be used like this, can someone please explain why not?

all the best,

drew