Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Peter Brink wrote:
> The word transfer has a 
> specific legal meaning. It means a full transfer of ownership of an 
> object from one entity to another.

Yes.

> A copyright license "leases" some of

I know what you meant, but I *highly* object to the terms "lease" and
"loan" being used in this context, they suggest that the license grant
is not perpetual, and for useful "free" or "commons" licenses, it MUST be.

> An open source/open content license however does not let the licensee 
> lease parts of a copyright.

This is actually incorrect in the case of "free" or "commons" licenses
-- the "sub-lease" is the ability to license derivatives combining one's
own work with the original. Since they are inseparable at that point,
the licensee is indeed able to "lease" in the same way that the owner can.

> Such licenses _lends_ a part of the
> licensor's copyright to the licensees. This is however not an 
> unconditional loan, it comes with some terms and conditions.

This still sounds pretty bent to me because the time-limited nature of
leases and loans, makes them quite different beasts than a perpetual
license of rights.

> A right is something I can demand. If I borrow something I cannot demand 
> to be allowed to do what the owner will not let me do.

You do in fact have the ability to insist on the rights you have been
granted.

For example, if I sell first serial rights to an article to one
magazine, then publish the article before they go to press, they can
quite rightly sue me (they probably could even get a court order
demanding that I delay publication -- or else refund the fee I charged
for the license I sold them). So the right (or the license to that
right) which I have sold them is in fact something they can insist on.

Likewise, if I use a piece of GPL software in compliance with the GPL,
the FSF cannot prevent me from doing so, even if they hate my guts. (The
closest thing to an exception to this is in "patent retaliation" clauses).

> I have no real
> rights. An source/open content license makes a licensee free to use a 
> copyrightable object in ways he might not have done otherwise.

Which in fact, gives him certain "rights" in the abstract sense, and
"licenses him certain rights non-exclusively" in the sense usually used
w.r.t. copyright law.

> To me the use of "freedom" in this context is fully accurate.

The real battle here is over connotations, though.

Greg feels that the connotation of using "freedom" in this place is that
it suggests that CC licenses "promote freedom" in a meaningful way,
which he feels is a misrepresentation. OTOH, the opposition feels that
the term "rights" creates a different set of connotations for artists
suggesting that the CC is about "rights assignment", which it is not.

IMHO, both problems can be resolved very succinctly, by rephrasing the
opening of the site. I suggested one possible version that I think does
this. As it happens, it uses both 'rights' and 'freedoms' in ways which
do not evoke either of these connotative problems:

"""
Creative Commons licenses grant a range of non-exclusive rights to the
public at large, in a modular way, ranging from near total control
(By-NC-ND) to near total freedom (By).
"""

Which I think is more clear and accurate, anyway. It could probably be
improved further, though.

Cheers,
Terry


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