Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 10/11/13 02:25 AM, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> 
> As a not too far fetched example, if I found out that some political
> group I really disapprove off took my work under CC BY-ND 4.0 and
> started to produce adaptions for their nefarious cause, but only used 
> the Adapted Material *internally* (i.e. within their community), I would
> (if this clause is part of the license) have no recourse,
> because they would argue that by using CC BY-ND, I've *licensed*
> them the right to produce Adapted Material, (only with the provison
> that the *licensee* so no provie the public with access to
> the Adapted Material.

I don't think that sharing work in this way would be considered private.

> Now, if someone unidentified individual (but not the licensee)
> distributed these adaptions widely on the Internet, I would still
> have no recourse because the adaption is actually *produced* legally,
> under the BY-ND license. The sharing, while illegal, is not the done
> by the licensee, and therefore not a license violation. (I know some
> of you will argue that I should  pursue the anonymous file sharers,
> but we all know that this is not really an option.)

The person sharing the work has no right to share the derivative, as
that right is not granted by the license, so this is incorrect.

> There is really nothing I know about that indicates that text and data
> mining *is* an adaption and therefore *need* to be licensed.

There is a policy argument about this in the EU at the moment.

> The proposed change to the ND licenses are confusing to the public
> because the fine print in the legal code grants the licensee rights
> that is not mentioned in the name or in the deed. This discrepancy
> between name/deed and legal code is harmful to the reputation of
> CC and difficult to explain to the public.  And if this discrepancy
> is pointed out by parties hostile to CC, it may lessen the public's
> confidence in the integrity of the CC licenses.

But people often already have the right to make derivatives in private.

And the CC licenses do not remove people's existing rights.

So I agree that ND admitting this looks weird, but it's better to be up
front about this rather than for anyone to get a nasty surprise further
down the line about what the law (rather than CC's license) actually says.