Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Dana Powers" <dana.powers AT gmail.com>]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that this was a factual stretch, i.e.,
that some licensors may not understand exactly what the licenses mean;
just that expecting a judge to apply principles of
adhesion/notice/web-wrap to those facts is a stretch.  I say that
mainly because I think courts typically put the responsibility to
understand terms of service or license terms etc on the party choosing
the terms, but admittedly I haven't researched that at all.  Just a
gut feeling from 1L contracts.

Dana

On 3/7/07, Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Dana wrote:
>
> > There may be room for a new argument - that the CC licensor is not fully 
> aware of the terms of the CC license she is choosing for her work - but that 
> seems like a stretch.
>
> Given how photographers understand the CC-BY-SA licence, before its
> implications are carefully read and explained to them, I'd suggest
> that it is not a stretch to say that people choose licences without
> understanding what the terms in it mean. [I'm picking a very straight
> forward,easily understood licence here.]
>
> When it comes to CC-BY-NC-SA, or CC-BY-NC-ND, I'd be surprised if 1 in
> 10,000 people who select either one, understand what it does, and does
> not do.
>
> In both instances, I would not be at all surprised if a the licensor
> convinced a jury that their understanding of the licence trumps the
> legal meaning of the licence --- on the grounds that they were not
> fully aware of the terms of the CCLicense that they chose.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses