Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Peter Brink wrote:

> Well put Harry,
>
> Just one minor point...
>
> Terry Hancock skrev:
> > That is the standard of ordinary "All Rights Reserved" works, and
> > the ND clause preserves that standard (it cannot, IMHO, extend it --
> > under copyright law, the author does not own what is not (in the
> > legal sense) *derived* from their work, hence they have no ownership
> > authority to impose such requirements).
> >
>
> One party can always agree (under the freedom of contract) to treat an 
> adaptation of a work as a "derivative work" even if it really isn't. 
> Thus, in theory, an open source/content license could actually extend 
> the scope of the legal concept "derivative works". However such an 
> extension would only affect those bound by the contract, third parties 
> are still (of course) unaffected.
>  
Well, that raises the legal question of whether a CC license
is a "license" or a "contract" -- again. ;-)

Mia Garlick says it's a contract, Eben Moglen says it can't be
(the same conditions apply as for the GPL).  Ms. Garlick
represents CC, though.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to start thinking of any of
these licenses as "contracts".  Anyway, even if they are, IIRC,
there's some language in there that specifically limits the
scope to the existing scope of copyright law.

Yep, here it is. Taken from the "Legal Code" for the By-NC-ND:

"""
*2. Fair Use Rights.* Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, 
limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other 
limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under 
copyright law or other applicable laws.
"""

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com