cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion
List archive
- From: "Graeme W. Austin" <austin AT law.arizona.edu>
- To: "Ian Thomson" <ithomson AT lycos.com>, <paul.reynolds AT mcgovern.co.nz>, <sue.Sutherland AT natlib.govt.nz>, <Winston.roberts AT natlib.govt.nz>, <daran.ponter AT natlib.govt.nz>, <colin.jackson AT it.gen.nz>, <richard.niven AT clear.net.nz>, <silke.radde AT med.govt.nz>, <erica.Gregory AT med.govt.nz>, <brian.opie AT vuw.ac.nz>, <s.cunningham AT qut.edu.au>, <zwimpfer AT xtra.co.nz>, <jill AT cwa.co.nz>, <justine.rutherford AT minedu.govt.nz>, <pamela.streeter AT minedu.govt.nz>, <selwyn AT shift.co.nz>, <gillian.vosper AT chrometoaster.com>, <hamish.macewan AT gmail.com>, <craig.holmes AT frst.govt.nz>, <oclare AT paradise.net.nz>, <strypey AT riseup.net>, <chris AT positivelywellingtonbusiness.co.nz>, <director AT nzetc.org>, <Alison.Stevenson AT vuw.ac.nz>, <anarchist AT tracs.co.nz>
- Cc: cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] NZ CC License approach
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:13:37 -0700
Dear Ian: Thanks
for copying me in on this material about the Creative Commons License (CCL). I
have a couple of thoughts: Before
going further with this project, it is, I think, very important to be thinking
about the CCL from the position of authors
as well as users. The CCL
may be very useful for academic writers, who, in many contexts, don’t
necessarily want or expect to be paid (or paid much) for their authorship.
Academics have their authorship habits subsidized by their employers; they are,
however, often very interested in having their work more liberally disseminated
with appropriate attribution. Hence the CCL will likely work very well for them.
From that perspective, the CCL may be a very useful innovation. For
people who try to make their living from authorship, however, it may be helpful
to consider whether you should have a section describing the implications that the
CCL might have for those who choose it over more traditional licences. The
history of copyright law provides many examples of licensing systems and
schemes operating unfairly for individual authors. It would be unfortunate if
the CCL, however well motivated, did the same thing. Given the significant implications
for authors of signing on to a CCL, it would be helpful if you did your best to
ensure that authors appreciate more fully the implications of losing both control
over the work and important means for compensation. The Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale
recently published a very good short paper exploring some of the implications
of the CCL for individual authors. See
29 Colum. J.L. & Arts 261 (2006). Drawing on that paper, I’d suggest
you consider whether you should including some or all of the following points –
in user-friendly language – in a “FAQ” section (while
disclaiming any and all obligations for legal advice, etc.): 1.
Make explicit the limitation on (indeed,
exclusion of) remuneration – so that no author is taken by surprise. 2.
Explain that the CCL is
inconsistent with the subsequent granting of exclusive licences – again,
so no author is taken by surprise. 3.
Explain the implications for
authors of signing on to a perpetual licence (excluding revocation other than
by breach by the licensee) (cl. 7). If an author changes her mind, she can
stop distributing the work, or choose to distribute subsequent copies with TPMs;
however, the copies released under the CCL will likely continute to circulate,
stripping the author of the economic value of the work, should she have a
change of heart. 4.
The CCL promises authors some very
important rights: attribution, inclusion of copyright information, obligations
not to attach TPMs downstream (which may be very important for authors
concerned about the free availability of information), etc. However, it might
be useful for authors if you made clear that CCL will not offer them help to
enforce the obligations of users
under the CCL, should those obligations be breached. There may
be other points, not mentioned here, that may also be relevant. The CCL can be
a very helpful innovation; that said, it is important that the good things it
can achieve are not tainted by the sense that it has operated unfairly, or that
there was insufficient disclosure of some of its possible implications for
authors. Given that one of the purposes of the CCL is to achieve freer dissemination
of information, accompanying the CCL with more information about its
implications is unlikely to be objectionable. Once
again, thanks for copying me in on this. Best wishes for your endeavours: Graeme Graeme W.
Austin From: Ian Thomson
[mailto:ithomson AT lycos.com] Sorry for any double posting, but I am not sure of how many of the
people at the Wellington CC meeting have joined the CC list serve. |
- Re: [Cc-nz] NZ CC License approach, Graeme W. Austin, 10/05/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.