Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:35:47 -0400, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 01:48:44 Ben Finney wrote:
>>> > Common sense and honesty should be enough to prompt people to disclaim
>>> > when they have changed the spirit of someone else's writings. Not
>>> > everything needs to be formalized in a legal license.
>>>
>>> Defamation law, fraud law, and other similar laws are better positioned
>>> to protect the author's meaning and intent in their work. Copyright is a
>>> poor tool for the job, and as many others have pointed out we have
>>> better tools available.
>>
>> Actually, many of us don't or don't know what we have.
>>
>> Those other laws are certainly the proper tool for the job if they were 
>> well
>> built and maintained.
> 
> I don't see how this is certain at all.  What do defamation law and
> fraud law have to do with moral rights over a copyrighted work?

Perhaps another way to look at it is that moral rights could be broken
out into a separate area of law and not included in copyright law.

It could just be that those of us from areas where moral rights in this
area are not "big" don't fully grok how it all works where they exist.
Perhaps this is strengthened by assigning different meaning to the words
or ideas used in explaining them.

How exactly could someone using your work in a way that is prejudicial
to the your
honour or reputation? Can they do this without being dishonest? Without
defaming you? Without committing fraud?

all the best,

drew