Cc-uk mailing list

[Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>]

Nice work! Love the plain language

Some thoughts:

> Make a new version of the Work by transforming, recasting or adapting 
> it. The User may, for example, sound-record, translate, dramatize, 
> abridge, condense, or fictionalize the Work, make a motion picture 
> version of it or make an art reproduction of it. The User may 
> similarly transform, recast or adapt these and later new versions of 
> the Work as well.

How about a note here that says, "These are only examples, and not a 
comprehensive list of ways you can transform this. Transformation takes 
on many forms, most them them not even invented yet. This list isn't 
meant to limit you to the items suggested here, but rather to serve as 
a starting point for all the ways you can transform this."

> If the work is in print or an image, the attribution must not normally 
> be placed in an associated sound file.

What does the word "normally" mean here?

> Stop any use of the Work that the Author considers prejudicial to 
> his/her honour or reputation as soon as possible after receiving 
> notice of the Author’s objection.

This seems to me to be a bad idea -- why shouldn't we be asking authors 
to waive this right? Otherwise, how can I know whether or not my use of 
your work will be allowed to stand? If I use your picture as my logo, 
and then someone runs an editorial on how dishonest I am, and you 
decide you don't want your picture in my logo anymore, you could force 
me to change (even if I've been using the logo for 50 years!) (and even 
if I'm not dishonest).

> Remove any mention of the Author from any new Version or larger piece 
> in which the Work is included, if the Creator requests.

Somewhere above this term in the license, we need something that says 
that this doesn't derogate from fair dealing rights to criticise, 
etc...

> Allow the use of technological measures – e.g., digital watermarking 
> or encryption devices – to control use of or access to the Work or any 
> version of it.

I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is overly broad. If I 
create a private community for me and my friends to circulate our 
derived works, and I passowrd-protect it and encrypt its outputs, I'll 
be in violation of this term. Why do we need this?

> Use the Work or any new version of the Work for advertising or in a 
> misleading or deceptive way.

This is also too broad for my taste. If I made a noncommercial archive 
of CC-licensed images and then buy banners advertising this fact on 
other sites with thumbnails from the collection, I'll be in violation.

> Use the Work or any new version in a way that prejudices the Author’s 
> honour or reputation.

This is redundant wrt to 4.D., but also really scary -- I wouldn't try 
to make a derived work from anything whose license included this 
clause. I would be much more comfortable with asking authors to waive 
this right (or omit mention of it altogether, as we have omitted 
"fraud" -- it's illegal to defraud someone, but there's nothing in here 
in which you aver that you won't use the work in the course of a fraud; 
it's illegal to libel someone, but why do we need to enumerate 
defamation as a specific promise?)


On Jul 13, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> You may find attached the latest draft of the Creative Commons UK 
> license. The
> drafting of the license required considerable amount of time as we 
> took into
> consideration all the comments put forward by the members of the Legal 
> Advisory
> Board as well as those made by the CC-UK mailing list participants.
>
> The license Draft was produced by a team from the Oxford Intellectual 
> Property
> Research Centre comprising Tina Piper, Giuseppina D'Agostino, Charles 
> Meyer and
> Daniel Burkitt, under the supervision of Professor D. Vaver.
>
> Significant progress has been made since the previous version of the 
> license,
> although some fine-tuning may be still required. We would be grateful 
> if you
> could provide us with some comments on the license draft within the 
> next couple
> of weeks, as our objective is to have a working version of the license 
> by late
> July.
>
> I am currently completing the version history of the license draft, 
> which will
> be posted latest by tomorrow evening.
>
> I look forward to receiving your comments.
>
> Thanks
> Prodromos Tsiavos
> CC- UK Legal Project Lead
>
>
> <OIPRC Draft 
> 28.06.04.doc>_______________________________________________
> Cc-uk mailing list
> Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk