Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

On 25 Aug 2012, at 00:15, David Chart <bydosa AT davidchart.com> wrote:

> 
> On 2012/08/24, at 17:07, Paul Keller wrote:
> 
>> At this point the license becomes meaningless as it does not say: 
>> 
>> this paper can be used under the terms of creative commons license
>> 
>> but rather says 
>> 
>> as far as the licensor is rights holder in this paper he gives permissions 
>> to make use of the paper under the terms of the license. there may however 
>> be other rights holders and it is up to you dear licensee to figure out if 
>> they also allow you to use the paper under these conditions. 
> 
> The second is all that the license ever says, even if it includes 
> warranties. If someone provides you with false warranties that he owns the 
> rights in something, that does not provide you with the right to use it. (I 
> cannot take away someone's copyright by lying about owning it.) It *might* 
> provide you with a defence if the actual rights owner seeks punitive 
> damages (that would be up to the courts), but you would still have to stop 
> using the content to which you did not have rights. It might also let you 
> sue the person who provided the false warranties, if you could find them, 
> and if they were in a jurisdiction you could reach, and if they actually 
> had any money, and if you could convince the court that they should be held 
> responsible for the actions of someone they had never met and whose actions 
> they could not reasonably predict.
> 
> That's a feature of the law, not the licenses, so I don't really see that 
> the draft can do anything other than make it clear.

still i would really like to see an obligation on the licensor to make sure 
that third party rights holders approve the that the work is licensed under 
the license in question. Form em the licenses are about enabling re-use and i 
can only re-use something under the terms of the license if that license 
actually covers the entire work. i am really not concerned about who may sue 
whom in what what specific circumstances but about what the licenses enable.  
/paul 

> (And, incidentally, it would be a feature of any law that made any Creative 
> Commons license possible, but not compulsory.)
> 
> -- 
> David Chart
> http://www.davidchart.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> 
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community