Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Terry Hancock wrote:
> I wrote this on the tail of an earlier email, but it's really a new
> question about something that's been bothering me for awhile now:
> 
> Several times on this list I have heard the claim that it is the opinion
> of the licensor and not the license steward* whose interpretation
> matters in the event of an infringement claim.

I would echo what Trinh has said, but add the following.

Where CC has written the licenses, its opinion as to their meaning,
particularly where that opinion is communicated to the public (as in the
NC guidelines) and confirmed by discussion and opinions of others in the
community (as on this list, in the situations where there is agreement),
CC's opinions come into the inquiry in two ways.

First, CC's communications (and all of yours) will have some effect in
influencing what people think the licenses mean.  If you go and explain
how SA / copyleft provisions work to more people, more of them will
understand it and mean roughly the same thing by using a SA license.

Second, where CC makes its opinions and intentions known, that can put a
limit on what a reasonable licensor (and licensee) would think.  It is
not reasonable to think, oh, let me pick something absurd, that a NC
license forbids rich people from usign the work.  Greater public
license-savvy means that courts are less likely to accept bizzare
personal interpretations.

Both of these effects provide a lot of tempering of possible divergence
in license interpretations.  Even beyond that, some scholars are also
developing legal theories of boilerplate and CC licenses that would
counsel courts to show especial concern for uniformity.

James