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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: CC licenses and "moral rights"
  • Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:21:48 -0500

On Friday 25 March 2005 09:42 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > I think it is a stretch too, but I am still in court having to defend
> > myself. Now, perhaps the lawsuit game is played differently in your
> > country than in the US, but this looks like serious problems for the US.
> > You could be harrassed endlessly.
>
> Moral rights is not (such) an issue in the US. A discussion on how to
> solve moral rights issues with CC licenses is not likely to be very
> meaningful based on US law...

Ah, but the world seems to be moving to cross border enforcement. Wasn't
there
a news item recently of a man in Australia getting extradited to the US (or
in the process of getting extradited) for copyright violations when he has
never been to the US?

>
> > Question, could a rich man with a grudge buy up all of the artworks of a
> > particular, say sculptur, and destroy them all?
> >
> > Legally that is.

So, if that rich person with a grudge was a right wing US cowboy and the
artist was a left wing Frenchman, could the artist file suit in France
against the destructin of his statues in the US?

Would extradition be possible? (From something I read, I think not as it said
extradition does not apply unless the act in question is a crime in both
countries. Anyone know if this is how it works?)

If the American goes to France for a vacation or for a business trip, could
the French authorities pick him up when he enters the country?

>
> Well the rule is that if you own a copy of a work then you may do
> whatever you like with it. Some works only exist as a original
> (buildings, paintings and sculptures are good examples),

This is why I picked a sculpture.

I have been told recently that buildings have a special exemption allowing
for
their destruction. (I think the person who told me was referring to US law
though.)

> and then it's
> reasonable that the artist could object. In your example I guess that if
> the artist became aware of the project he could try to stop it. If the
> artwork already had been destroyed, I think that in some jurisdictions
> (France for example) the artist would have a case. But this is a rather
> esoteric case.

Perhaps not as esoteric as you think, didn't Bill Cosby buy the copyrights to
the Little Rascals so as to prevent them from being seen again?

By the way, since I am trying to learn, I am purposefully exploring the edges
of applicability when it comes to moral rights. The normal, middle of the
road cases are a little easier to get.

all the best,

drew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page