Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Jonathon wrote:
> Copyright, or even enforcement of copyright is not the issue.  The
> major issue is whether or not Virgin should have had model releases or
> not.

I totally agree. However, the point I m trying to make relates to the 
allegation of the claimant that he was misinformed regarding the meaning of 
the term 'commercial'

"to adequately educate and warn him . of the meaning of commercial use and 
the ramifications and effects of entering into a license allowing such use."
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680

All I m saying is

(a) that the more we are going to have non-professional creators, the more 
we will have to deal with legal issues that normally would have been issues 
involving only professionals.
(b) the practice of introducing terms [e.g. commercial/ noncommercial] that 
are not recognized or clearly defined by Copyright or other national laws is 
prone to cause legal disputes

> Model releases are irrelevant to copyright law.
> A future CC license that contains a "model release" clause would, by
> definition, be incompatible with prior licenses.  None the less,
> material under existing licenses could be converted to a future
> license, by a future user, despite that incompatibility.

IMHO the "model release clause" should be in included in the next version of 
the CC licences, though I m not sure how the incompatibility issue would be 
resolved.

thnx
pRo



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