Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Prodromos Tsiavos" <p.tsiavos AT lse.ac.uk>]

Hi,

This is an interesting discussion since the suggestion for the introduction 
of an "ethical clause" in the CC licences dates back from 2003. Though 
desirable, such clause raises a series of problems as many of the 
discussants have already indicated. I m summing up some of them:

- you cannot just add such a clause or make changes to the CC licensing 
terms by yourself. You cannot not in the sense that it would be illegal, but 
in the sense that it would place your "customized" licence outside the CC 
system, i.e. it would render it impossible to interact with the SA licences.
- most legal problems CC licences have relate to the interpretation of terms 
such as "non-commercial" which are not used by national Copyright Laws. The 
introduction of yet another difficult to clearly define term is not going to 
solve any problems. The Virgin case indicates precisely that.
- Some of the functions that an "ethical clause" would serve are already 
covered by Moral Rights [contained in v.3.0 of the licences] or other 
national laws that are of obligatory nature and hence there is no point 
mentioning them in an already complicated licence.
- There are other related to the "ethical lause" issues that have been 
already covered on this list this year and have to do with publicity rights, 
release forms etc and indicate that before suggesting yet another clause, it 
is always useful to see if there are other means available to achieve the 
same objectives.

To return to the Virgin case, in my opinion, there are two things it shows:
- we still have to work hard on educating CC licence users and clarifying 
ourselves some of the terms used
- what the Virgin case indicates is not a CC problem but a broader Copyright 
problem: with the proliferation of creators and disseminators, what in the 
past would have been a specialized issue involving a small no of 
specialists, it is now part of daily routines involving everyone.

I m expecting to see far more related cases in the future, with or without 
CC.

Thanks
pRo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Ebener" <myonlyb AT vollbio.de>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use


> Hi,
>
> I would like to support Drew as for a German Law-point-of-view:
> Following German law, the CC are general terms and conditions and
> therefore must be very specific so that the user can easily understand
> what is allowed and what is not. NC is complicated enough, but I think
> that most judges will be confident that they can interpret this
> theirselves since commercial is a term used in other areas of law as well.
> But the term "ethical" is subject to too much change and interpretation
> and would most certainly render the clause void...
>
> Yours,
> Karl
>
> drew Roberts schrieb:
> > On Friday 28 September 2007 11:47 pm, paola.dimaio AT gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > >
> > > > Can you give a complete definition with what "ethical" means?
> > > Well, we are still discussing what 'commercial' means, right?
> > > Even commercial is not that straightforward
> > >
> > > We have non commercial use, not better specified
> > > Then we can also have 'ethical' use, and work it out later
> >
> > Please no. It will make all the CC licenses basically unuseable. And 
> > certainly
> > not for any works that do not contain visual representations of peoples
> > likenesses. And also especially not for BY amd BY-SA licenses. I 
> > personally
> > would not object as strongly to such use in anyhting with NC or ND even
> > though I think it ill advised there as well.
> >
> > There is a point in a free society where we need to do good by our fellow 
> > man
> > and leave them to be responsible for their abuses.
> >
> > Even the Free Software folks, who many might inagine would want anti 
> > military
> > bits in, left them out to keep the code Free.
> >
> > Now, if you or someone else can come up will clean language that somehow 
> > will
> > make this work without all the confusion...
> >
> > > It's not so difficult. It's a simple condition that allows to use CC
> > > licensed work only
> > > if it is not used for (see annex). In the annex you can put what you 
> > > want
> >
> > This would kill any SA sharing and re-use.
> >
> > > The work covered under this licenses, and any parts thereof, cannot be
> > > used in conjunction with any of the following usages
> > >
> > > - illegal activities (any country)
> >
> > And this would stop someone why? Is a person willing to abuse a child 
> > gonn
> > have second thoughts about abusing your copyright?
> >
> >
> > > - activities against human rights charter
> > > - activities that exploit and abuse people especially children
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > - to sell unhealthy product and products that harm the environment
> >
> > Now, this may be possible. A clause to the effect, that commercial does 
> > not
> > cover "endorsement" uses perhaps? Especially with respect to peoples 
> > images
> > again.
> >
> > > etcetera
> > >
> > > Any usage that is not in the black list, would not require permission
> > > Any usage that is in the black list, is prohibited
> >
> > If it is a standard back list... But if each person gets to put in their 
> > own
> > back list... Kiss SA goodbye...
> >
> > > simple as that
> > >
> > >
> > > > Unless you are using the word "ethical" is way that I'm unfamiliar
> > > > with... "ethics" are rules that a person voluntarily chooses to
> > > > follow.  And which rules do and don't make up their "ethical code" is
> > > > up to them.
> > > I chose not to drink coke, and to to eat McDonalds hamburgers, and not
> > > to promote
> > > pornography and belligerant and slanderous websites, and not to do
> > > phisihing scams nor hack other people property and generally be
> > > respectful and kind
> >
> > All well and good.
> >
> > > and I am also responsible for the work that I produce not be used
> > > against my principles
> >
> > Keep it to yourself then. In a Free society, you are not responsible for 
> > this.
> > Those who do the dirty works are responsible.
> >
> > > > (In other words... for each person... what is and isn't ethical is
> > > > different.)
> > > sure - but we all agree in principle on certain points, right?
> >
> > If only...
> >
> > > > Now... the problem with putting an "ethical" clause into a license is
> > > > that if you do NOT completely define and explicitly list what the
> > > > rules that make up your "ethical code", then things are completely
> > > > ambiguous.  And a person won't know what they can and can't do.
> > > agreed. Let me start working on a an ANNEX
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Paola
> > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >     Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. <http://ChangeLog.ca/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >                  Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
> > > >                     http://vlograzor.com/
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses 


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic 
communications disclaimer: 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm