Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 25 August 2012 07:34:24 Paul Keller wrote:
> > 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

There are several problems with this though.

Do we intend to restrict the use of CC licenses to those well funded enough 
to 
take legal advice on their liability with respect to each work they license?

Some people may know everyone who works "with" them in producing a work. 
Other 
do not. Or they do in some situations and not in others.

Copyright is pervasive. You may create a work and not even know that it 
contains works by others. How can you give such assurances?

Even so, you can have all the copyright aspects straight and still other 
rights can bite the unwary / ignorant.

Granted, copyright law shout be changed to require at a minimum a copyright 
notice and better yet, registration and define copyleft into law and let all 
other works be considered copyleft and not copyright.

Then the copyright notice should be legally required to specify what 
copyright 
is being claimed on and what is not copyrighted and what other copyrights 
exist in the work.

These specific claims should not be required for unmarked copyleft works or 
marked copyleft works.

It is becoming more and more clear thought that copyright law is not suited 
for everyday use by everyday human beings.

all the best,

drew