Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>]

Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> writes:

> On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > Misrepresenting opinions, to the extent that it should be a legal
> > offense, is a deceit, not a violation of copyright. What laws cover
> > deceit? Fraud, defamation, etc. – not copyright.
>
> It's a violation of moral rights under the Berne Convention:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29#Berne_Convention
>
> "Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the 
> transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim 
> authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or 
> other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the 
> said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation."

Thank you.

What does “the author shall have the right to … object to any
[modification] which would be prejudicial” mean, though? It doesn't say
that those actions violate the copyright, and doesn't seem to impose any
obligation on the person doing those actions. The author objects – and
what?

This is quite unlike the injunction found in typical legal phrasing. In
this clause actions of third parties aren't enjoined to do or not do
anything. So my assertion above – that these actions don't violate
copyright – seems to stand.

-- 
 \          “Some subjects are so serious that one can only joke about |
  `\                                                them.” —Niels Bohr |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney