Development of Creative Commons licenses

[paola.dimaio AT gmail.com]

Rich, ( and drew)

I am not saying it's easy and straightforward, but I am saying there
must be ways of having it both ways (max freedom and max protection)
and we should think about it
(sounds like the advert line for a deodorant now)

It is true, you can see E as a subset of a religious world view,
therefore difficult to represent and enforce uniformly , but I am sure
that there can be simpler ways to agree on 'fair' usage extending the
fairness to include, say, fundamental human rights, or a simple list
of 'nonos'

I can take risk, but I should prevent unnecessary exposure


> But, to stay more focused on the licenses, is there a default
> mechanism to revoke permission on a CC license?

assuming there is (there should be) - its difficult to track usage -
given that permission is not required

 I personally like the
> idea of taking the risk and letting the expression stay out there.
> For one, it carries the default risk of being used by an outright
> critic.  Putting yourself out there with that default risk carries a
> certain amount of accountability that raises the bar on expression.

Imagine the photographs of  a pretty child  used to lurk pedofiles on
some grim websites
Legally, the misusage of the photo would not be persecuted until you
take the trouble of making a claim against that
(and find them, and track them down, then prove that you did not quite
intend the license for that , etc). Law enforcement agencies are
concerned enough about children abuse, the worry about the wrong usage
of a photo to gain commercial advantage would be secondary I suspect-

>
> While I joke about the extensive metadata required for a +E, there
> actually is an established option.
> http://www.icra.org/label/

nice - but not sure that would solve my issue

sorry if this conversation is becoming a little circular and boring!

at least we are talking about it -

cheers
PDM