Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 26 March 2005 05:09 am, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2005, at 23:45, drew Roberts wrote:
> > Interesting, but if this is about respecting the person of the artist
> > as has
> > been being discussed... You can't trash me while I am alive, but you
> > can drag
> > me through the mud when I am gone and my family can't object, even if
> > that
> > tends to reduce their standing in society?
> >
> > I took it to family as I felt that might be a stronger case than the
> > business
> > successors that you quoted.
>
> My understanding (IANAL) is that the family heirs of a dead person can
> enforce the moral rights of the dead person. A business successor
> cannot, because businesses cannot hold moral rights.
>
> > Also interesting that the moral rights were held not to be
> > transferrable while
> > I assume the copyrights were. Especially since it has been pointed out
> > that
> > copyrights flow from and rest on moral rights. (My wording from what I
> > think
> > I was told.)
>
> The point is that you cannot transfer moral rights, because they
> protect the reputation and integrity of the author who is the person
> who created the work and no one else. The character of the author is
> not merchandise like the financial interest in the work.

So, you cannot transfer your moral rights but your heirs can enforce them for 
you after you are dead? And can they contract with your business successors 
to enforce your moral rights at the behest of your business successors.
>
> In Finland, instead of complex contract law there is a freedom of
> contract. In principle, two people or other legal entities can agree on
> anything. However, it is recognized that the legal ideal of a balanced
> negotiation cannot take place in all situations--in particular in
> situations where one party is a business and the other is a private
> person (an employee or a consumer). That's why there are specific
> limitations that make certain components of agreements void.
>
> The expectation is that an author makes a contract with a publisher or
> an employer--that is, a company that wields financial power over the
> author. Moral rights protect the author from an evil publisher. The
> author is not allowed to transfer or dispose of the moral rights, so
> (s)he cannot be coerced into doing so.

While these things are often towards admirable ends, there can be quirky, 
unforseen results.

A family sotry, and I don't know if those telling it had it right, or if I 
remember it right, may illustrate the point.

My uncle, a Bahamian, married a woman from France. After getting married they 
made their home here in the Bahamas. Supposedly, under the Bahamian laws at 
the time, when a Bahamain man marries a foreign woman, she has the right to 
Bahamian citizenship but she must give up her other citizenship. Now the 
story goes that France will not honour/validate/accpet (I don't know the 
correct term) a Frence citizens revocation of their French citizenship. 
Therefore, she could not get her Bahamian citizenship. I believe this caused 
her a number of problems.

So, it may indeed be a good thing to not allow moral rights to be transferred 
in order ot prevent someone from being coerced into giving them up, yet, this 
restriction may get in the way of them working together with people they 
honestly want to becasue the possible collaberators may not want to run the 
risk of having them assert their moral rights. Or worse, of having their 
heirs assert their moral rights after they die.

all the best,

drew