Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 26 March 2005 06:25 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Friday 25 March 2005 10:08 am, Greg London wrote:
> >>I'm starting to think the focus should be on the removal
> >>of moral rights. Unfortunately, what little I know and
> >>have heard about european law around this, is that
> >>European law does not allow an author to say up front:
> >>
> >>"I promise to never open the trap door underneath you"
> >
> > Do the licenses allow specification of controlling legal jurisdiction? If
> > not, could they and would this lead to a way to circumvent.
> >
> > Could you have include in the license a restriction by the original
> > author that if any derivative authors bring a suit on moral rights then
> > they are in violation of the original authors copyrights?
> >
> > Could you have the original author make the promise in a jurisdiction
> > without moral rights, so that if they bring a suit in a moral rights
> > country, the person they are bringing the suit against could counter-sue
> > in the country in which the promise was made?
> >
> > Other ideas?
> >
> > At this point, let's please all try not to get bent out of shape. Let's
> > explore possibilities to accomplish all objectives as well as have the
> > discussion as to which objectives we whould persue.
>
> Trying to circumvent moral rights would be good way to kill off CC in
> Europe - if that is what you want - go head.

I am definately not trying to kill CC anywhere. I am spending all of this 
time 
because I want to see CC or something like it suceed, worldwide.

Unfortunately, I see the real possibility that we are going to end up with 
those from moral rights countries working together and those from non-moral 
rights countries working together and a fear of crossing over.

I we can find a middle path, I think it would help greatly.
>
> The aim of a CC license is to create a way for creators to allow others
> to reuse their works in a safe way. The safety must apply to both
> parties, both the licensor and the licensee must be able to trust the
> license. Trying to take away the founding stone of copyright (from the
> European perspective) from the licensor is not a wise move. The rules
> regarding moral rights are there to prevent a creator from being forced
> to yield his copyright. Trying to go around this protection is not going
> to make the license look very tempting to most creators, a few probably
> wouldn't mind but the larger part of the possible users of a CC license
> (in moral rights countries) are going to scared away.
>
> Let it be - let moral rights remain outside the license, that is going
> to be the best in the long run.

Why should I? Why should one tradition yield to the other? I may have to 
leave 
you to play your game wihtout me, but you certainly can't insist I play by 
your rules with my creations. Think about what you said.

It seems thet what these discussion are showing is that the two traditions 
(are there others around the world?) are uneasy with working under the rules 
of the other. It seems to me that ignoring this issue and hoping it will go 
away if left alone is just a time bomb for the Creative Commons. Where am I 
wrong in this thinking?

all the best,

drew