Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 28 March 2005 07:16 pm, Alex Schroeder wrote:
> Greg London schrieb:
> >Some countries may not allow a blanket waiver, that's democracy.
> >But countries that DO allow blanket waivers ought to be able to
> >have a license option that lets them exercise that waiver because
> >that's a result of democracy too.
>
> I think the point is that these countries are trying to protect artists
> against having to sell-out.  By forbidding the sell-out, they are
> actually protecting artists against publishers.  

It has to be more than this though as from wht I have learned here so far, 
these rights will exist even if the author/artist chooses to self publish. 
Right?

> So I don't think 
> introducing such an option will be easy.  The current state of the
> affair is that the authors claim that they will not sue you if you
> violate their moral rights.  If you do, however, and the authors are
> having a bad day, bad luck.  The point is that we would like authors to
> waive their moral rights in order to protect down-stream authors.  From
> this I conclude that the only safe bet is to never violate the moral
> rights of authors.  

Are these rights clear enough that you can know ahead of time, without 
contacting the original author, what they will be so that you can be sure not 
to violate them?

> Living in a country that protects these moral 
> rights, I can't see anything wrong with this, except to note that it is
> not 100% compatible with the anglo-saxon tradition.  I mean, /factually/
> the moral rights are not terrible tools of censorship or anything like
> that.  

This is the sort of knowledge that those of us not from moral rights 
traditions need to know.

Can anyone give examples of cases based on damage to reputation that have 
been 
brought and lost when the claim was at least semi-reasonable.

all the best,

drew