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: Christopher Covington <cov AT vt.edu>
  • 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: Wed, 09 May 2012 09:10:00 -0400

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 11:50 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 14:08, Christopher Covington wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:03:53 +0200 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>
> >>>> However, I think it is important that users of CC BY-SA has
> >>>> protection against their opinions being distorted. The correct
> >>>> solution, in my opinion, is not to include a mandatory disclaimer,
> >>>> but to have the following clause in the license:
> >>>>
> >>>> You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory
> >>>> action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to
> >>>> the Original Author's honour or reputation.
>
> > I am not in favor of any such clause. How does one comply with this?
>
> In the same way as one comply with libel laws, and other laws that
> exist to protect honour and reputation.

If you have any links, I'd be interested in reading about the
due-diligence process for this around the world. I'm only familiar with
libel law in the context of relatively strong free speech protections.

> I don't think the CC should use its public license to cancel the
> Berne convention (not that the CC *can* do this - but it will
> be confusing if the CCPL contains a waiver that tricks licensees
> into believing that they need not consider moral rights).

I very much agree that the Creative Commons licenses should take every
reasonable possibility (without getting too verbose) to remind users of
the legal framework in which they must work.

Thank you for your detailed response. As you observed, moral rights are
foreign to me. I'm not sure I agree with all of your analysis of the
Browne case (the article clearly states the case was settled, and I
would want to see a judge's ruling on the question of whether playing a
fully-licensed song, unmodified, at a political rally disagreeable to
the original author would really constitute a "derogatory action in
relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to [the author's]
honor or reputation.")

Regards,
Chris





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page