cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- 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: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:50:30 -0500
On Monday 28 March 2005 07:42 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Alex Schroeder wrote:
> > You treat moral rights like a big unknown that can be used to silence
> > you at any time. This is not true, however. In Switzerland, moral
> > rights include the "right to be named the author of a work" and the
> > "right to prevent derivatives that damage your reputation". Those terms
> > are not some vague hammer to silence the obnoxious. They are very
> > concrete terms. If I write a song for you, you may not claim to have
> > written it yourself. If I write a song for you, you may not change the
> > words such that it glorifies Hitler (and thus damages my reputation).
>
> I've heard this exact argument (invoking Hitler or Nazi propaganda as
> the defining case of reputational damage) several times. It doesn't
> strike me as particularly useful. It is hardly an edge case. And you
> know the cliche, "easy cases make bad law."
>
> How is it actually decided what constitutes damage to reputation and was
> does not (e.g., in Switzerland)? Anything the author decides they don't
> like? A legislated standard with a list of reputation-damaging
> associations, presumably including nazism? Up to a judge's discretion
> based on their intepretation of current social norms?
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights "Article 6bis of
> the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:
>
> Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after
> the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to
> claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation
> or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the
> said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
>
> Which still leaves me completely in the dark as to what standards are used.
These are some of the answers I am looking for as well. Another issue is how
people of different religious beliefs (or non-religious beliefs) can use this
to object to the use of their work by people of other beliefs. Have these
sorts of cases come up?
all the best,
drew
-
Re: CC licenses and "moral rights"
, (continued)
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Evan Prodromou, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Greg London, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Peter Brink, 03/26/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/26/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Peter Brink, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Alex Schroeder, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Mike Linksvayer, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Greg London, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Alex Schroeder, 03/29/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/28/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Alex Schroeder, 03/29/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Greg London, 03/26/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Greg London, 03/26/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Henri Sivonen, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", drew Roberts, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Henri Sivonen, 03/25/2005
- Re: CC licenses and "moral rights", Peter Knupfer, H-Net, 03/25/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.