Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 30 September 2007 08:12 am, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> 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.

And I don't think it should be in there. Or it should be another optional 
element.

CC BY-SA-MR

say.


>
> thnx
> pRo
>
>
all the best,

drew