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: Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing
  • Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 22:53:39 -0400

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:12 PM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> 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.

I guess. But ultimately they are both about the right of the author
to control the use of their work.

The strange part is in jurisdictions where moral rights cannot be
waived or licensed. It's not clear to me how that is supposed to
work. If an author has the right to be attributed, and the right to
be anonymous, surely if they choose one of the two they are thereby
waiving the other. And if an author approves of a modification,
surely they can't later change their mind and claim that the
modification is a distortion.

In my opinion moral rights and copyright go hand in hand, and any CC
licenses which allow modification (including those which require
Sharealike) should waive/license all rights to modification, whether
moral rights or copyright, to the maximum extent legally possible. I
was under the impression the CC licenses already did this, and that
there is no plan to change this.

A license which allows people to make modifications without
permission, and then reserves the right to make certain modifications,
doesn't make sense to me. As always I think complying with CC-BY and
CC-BY-SA should be as simple as possible, and having to worry about
whether or not your changes might be prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of one of the authors, is, in my opinion, an unnecessary
complication. Leave unnecessary complications to the non-free CC
licenses.

For the ND licenses, they should presumably reserve those moral rights
which apply to modification.

For the NC (but not ND) licenses, I really don't care.

> 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?

One obvious difference is that dishonesty, defamation, and fraud all
require a certain level of intent. Whereas so far as I know a moral
rights violation, like a copyright violation, is pretty much strict
liability (though this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page