Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Jordan S Hatcher <jordan AT opencontentlawyer.com>]

On 2 Oct 2007, at 19:12, Terry Hancock wrote:

> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> > > So I'm asking -- *is* that what happens with the 3.0 wording? Or is
> > > there some trick that I'm missing?
> >
> > See 8f.
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>
> Yeah, okay, here it is:
>
> """
> SNIP.
> """
>
> So what's your opinion?
>
> Looks to me like it DOES assert moral rights in non-moral-rights
> jurisdictions. Which is why I think it's a bad idea.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

As I mentioned earlier in this thread:

> CC licences, despite having an 'unported' version, really come down
> to the law in an individual jurisdiction. There is no overriding
> international copyright law, as it is all based on a system of
> minimum standards and national treatment.

The unported licence is not tuned to any specific jurisdiction, and  
as described in the clause, takes effect in the jurisdiction that it  
is to be enforced, ergo the moral rights in the jurisdiction that it  
is enforced are the ones that will govern. Whether you can get  
dragged into court in a far away jurisdiction is a matter of personal  
jurisdiction rules/law.

This is why I always argue to use a jurisdiction-specific licence  
rather than the unported licence.

~Jordan

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007