Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT>
  • To: cc-licenses AT
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use
  • Date: 1 Oct 2007 00:52:56 +0900

Rob Myers <rob at> wrote:

>If a model release warning was included that just clarified that such
>issues exist, like with Moral Rights, this wouldn't be a compatibility
>issue. If the licence placed stronger constraints on the user than exist
>in law genrerally then this would be both a compatibility issue and a
>very bad idea.

I think that there is a warning that lawyers are supposed to be able to
understand. (But being a non-lawyer, I could be wrong).

Some might have pointed this out, but the -1.0 licenses did include some
rights clearances. After version 1.0, only the warranty disclaimer type
of provision is left at the corresponding part.

Here is a quote from CC-BY-1.0's "5. Representations, Warranties
and Disclaimer"

a. By offering the Work for public release under this License,
Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's
knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
i. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to
grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise
of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to
pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other
ii. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark,
publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third
party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious
injury to any third party.

--end of quote--

>So IMHO model release *requirements* should *not* be in the license.
>Model releases are an educational problem not a license language
>problem. There are many more issues that the license doesn't cover:
>trademarks, patents, trade secrets, personality and publicity rights,
>hull designs, seed rights, etc., etc. . What should be in the license
>(and on the license deed, and in the FAQ) is a general warning that you
>need to make sure that you have all the rights you need and that the CC
>license is only a copyright license.

The departure from the warranty provision quoted above is understandable in
my opinion. After all, the licensor might or might not be aware of
the clause, and the rights might or might not be cleared. After all,
they are amateurs. So I am not sure how reliable their warranties are.

Compared to that, an explicit choice made by the licensor to
signal that rights are cleared is a lot better. So an additional
license element is better than a warranty.

But I think the idea behind the departure from this warranty
was that some third party can come and provide warranty
(for a fee, for example). Such a service have not happened I suppose.
Still, that would be a better course of development than an additional
license element.

Anyway, I wish there will be some solution to this.

The content must be freed from people's rights to be freely usable.
And what we want is freely usable works, not just works free from
licensors' copyrights. But in while that becomes a reality,
we have to learn what kind of rights are potentially related to a
use of a CC-licensed work. FAQ on this matter is very good resource
for many concerned non-lawyer users, in my opinion.

By the way, I thought, you, Rob, agreed that free content
should be free of many different types of rights. Discussion
below is what I managed to remember.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page