Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing
  • Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:31:00 +0100

On 05/03/2012 10:50 AM, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
On 02.05.2012 14:08, Christopher Covington wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:03:53 +0200 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
(Some tells me that the USA is different,
but to me, it looks as if moral rights is alive and well,
even in the USA, re:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/jackson-browne-settles-with-gop-over-running-on-empty-ad-use-20090721
)

My understanding of that case is that after the judge rejected the fair
use defense, the two parties settled with each other. The court did not
make any ruling upholding moral rights as such.

This is not correct. Some other disputes about the GOP-campaign
using songs by "Disgruntled Rockers" were resolved by the GOP
licensing the songs (this was how a similar conflict with Foo
Fighters was resolved). However, in the case of Jackson Browne,
Browne's moral rights means that the GOP cannot legally use his
songs, even if they buy a license).

My favorite example of Moral Rights being upheld in the US is the Monty Python case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)#In_the_United_States

If the CC puts a too broad waiver of moral rights into its license,
it will just make this part of the license (and possibly the whole
license) illegal in any jurisdiction that is a Berne signatory,
*including* the USA.

Moral rights are waivable in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK), but are inalienable in others (e.g. Germany).

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page