Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> writes:

> On 05/12/2012 01:39 AM, Ben Finney wrote:

> > 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.
>
> They may or may not violate copyright per se (I honestly don't know, I
> am not a lawyer) *but* they violate moral rights, which are part of
> copyright legislation and gained as a result of creating a copyrighted
> work.

That's my point, though: the clause doesn't seem to make those actions a
violation of the clause. It merely says “the author shall have the right
to object”.

Is there no distinction there? This seems quite meaningfully different
from saying “the recipient may not make modifications which would be
prejudicial” or the like? It's that latter phrasing that would make
those actions a violation of copyright, as I read it.

So it seems to my reading that the clause you quote does not enjoin the
recipient of a work in any way. But I speak from a position of ignorance
about these “moral rights” in copyright law.

-- 
 \      “Be careless in your dress if you must, but keep a tidy soul.” |
  `\                              —Mark Twain, _Following the Equator_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney