Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts wrote:
>  Henri wrote:
> > I had thought that WIPO requires members to grant the same level of
> > copyright monopoly to foreign copyright holders as they grant to
>
>  It does.
>
> > country has a life plus 70 rule, it has to apply at least life plus
> > 70 to the KJV (but life plus 70 puts the KJV in the Public
> > Domain).
>
>  The issue is that when the Crown Copyright was granted, teh term was
>  not life plus 70 years, but rather "until the end of eternity".

No no. You missed the point. The United States never had "Crown 
Copyright" and wouldn't recognize it if it did. The treaty (apparently) 
requires the US to grant the full copyright that the *US* would grant.  
So, if the US grants "life + 70", then they would be obligated to apply 
that rule to the KJV.  Of course, even if the author were a 
centegenarian who translated the work while still in diapers, that makes 
the work public domain from (at the latest) 1770 onwards (I'm guess that 
1705 or so is more realistic).

>  There is a legal principle that prevents the duration of the
>  copyright from being reduced from "until the end of eternity" to
>  something somewhat shorter.

I haven't heard of that "legal principle", but I'm reasonably sure it 
would not be recognized in US courts.

>  Then include a clause to the effect of "This material may not be
>  sold, transmitted, replicated, duplicated, or otherwise distributed
>  in a manner which cause a charge, whether direct, indirect, or
>  associated with the material, to the recipient of the material. All
>  expenses in distribution have to be born by the distributor, who may
>  not receive any compensation for the distribution."

That disclaimer is not a bad idea.

Cheers,
Terry

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