Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, at 00:49AM, Prodromos Tsiavos 
<prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:

>In particular, we have not reached an agreement in relation to the following 
>items:
>(a)    territoriality: the BBC ? Creative Archive licence is granted only 
>within the UK, whereas the CC-UK is a worldwide licence. 

I'd love to see the BBC get content back from worldwide users. Much better 
ROI. Have they seen that the Dutch parliament has voted to make Dutch public 
service TV public domain?
If the BBC are constrained to a UK-only license, the shared language could 
refer to the "territory" or "scope" (or whatever a good legal term meaning 
"zone" is) of the license. CC-CA could define the territory as "The UK", 
CC-UK could define the territory as "The World".

>(b)    Non ? Endorsement: BBC has introduced an extra Licence Element that 
>is 
>making sure that the material released under a Creative Archive license is 
>not 
>endorsed by the BBC, i.e. the Work should not be used in any way that would 
>suggest or imply the BBC?s support, association or approval. This is the 
>reason 
>why the licence will be called the Creative Archive Public Licence and no 
>mention of the BBC will be made. 

Is there a "right to endorsement" that needs limiting in this way? The BBC 
explicitly aren't licensing their name or identity. IIRC, back in the 1980s 
the BBC cease-and-desisted some software companies for using the BBC logo to 
advertise software for the BBC micro without permission. I think trademark 
and trade description law should suffice here.

>(c)    Non ? Commercial: this is the most difficult issue in relation to the 
>harmonization of the two licences. BBC?s clause includes only personal use 
>and 
>excludes among others ?institutional, political or promotional uses?. The CC 
>2.0 excludes any use ?that is primarily intended for or directed toward 
>commercial advantage or private monetary compensation?. The BBC definition 
>is 
>much narrower (in relation to the permitted uses) and hence more restrictive 
>than the CC 2.0. The BBC is willing to abolish the personal use and move the 
>political and institutional elements to the ?Non-Endorsement?provision but 
>is 
>not willing (right now) to accept the US definition. They are afraid that it 
>allows indirect commercial uses. So, we are looking for alternative 
>definitions 
>and any suggestion is welcome!

Surely one of the BBC's largest intended markets is the education sector. 
Disallowing institutional noncommercial use means that a graphic designer can 
practice their commercial video editing skills by remixing CA footage in 
their spare time but that 12-year old schoolchildren will be unable to make 
their own documentaties about marmosets after watching the BBC's schools 
programmes during class. 

Political use is an interesting one. I think that non-endorsement implicitly 
isolates the BBC from this. Each party would be equally free to use CA work 
without dragging the BBC's name in to it. 

>I have argued to the BBC that asking for more restrictive controls in the 
>Non-
>Commercial definition is not really compatible with the Non-Endorsement 
>clause: 
>if the Creative Archive material is not to be associated with the BBC then 
>the 
>latter should not have any control over it either, therefore the political 
>and 
>institutional restrictions should not be included. I have not managed to 
>pass 
>the message as yet but will keep trying.  

One problem with any restriction (non-endorsement, Integrity) is that you are 
asserting downstream control of derived work. You are taking editorial 
control. At some point, someone, somewhere, is going to get you some very 
negative publicity for objecting to use A of your work, when you have allowed 
(or more probably not noticed) use XXXX of your work. It costs money to 
police each extra policy on downstream work. Extra restrictions may 
discourage uptake. These are all good reasons for the non-endorsement 
agreement being on the side of the contributor, not the user. :-)

>2. Jonathan Mitchell has repeatedly and very correctly raised the 
>jurisdiction 
>issue. The version I am currently posting contains only the England and 
>Wales 
>jurisdictions but this should be just one of the three available options. I 
>am 
>open to suggestions on how we should implement the three UK jurisdiction 
>options. What would be the substantial differences in each jurisdiction in 
>terms of the text of the licence? Any other concrete suggestions for how we 
>could implement the three jurisdictions? 

Have a submenu in the license chooser, below UK for En/Wa, Scot and NI?

Without wishing to sound too silly, what happens when the UK breaks up or 
becomes departments of Europe? 

>Please let me know what you think. 

CC-UK:

This is still becoming even clearer and more succinct with each new version.

1. Good to see URL defined.

2. Can This be made multi-sentence for increased clarity?

2.1.3 "any technological measures digital rights management"

2.1.4 Is it worth waiving Paternity and restoring only the specific 
Attribution rights to ensure a good match to the CC-BY terms?

2.1.5 Ddo

2.3(.1?). CC-UK licenses are therefore "leaky" to CC-BBC-CA works. Since they 
must be NC I don't think this is too bad, but there are a couple of problems:
CC-UK doesn't warrant authority to contribute, CC-BBC-CA does. I think this 
is a major incompatibility
CC-UK waives integrity, CC-BBC-CA doesn't. This may interact.
cc-UK allows global use, CC-BBC-CA doesn't. So I can import a work from a 
jurisdiction that allows equivalent licenses to be used, combine it with CA 
work, then not re-export the results. Doesn't this break any treaties? :-)

2.54 This is The Right Thing to do in the context of this license.

2.6 This is similar to BY-NC-SA-2.0's 4d/4e, and I assume the non-NC will be 
similar to CC-BY-SA-2.0's 3e/3f which waive the exclusive right to collect.

7.1 This is still the draconian IP license that Debian found objectionable. 
Can it be removed, or can it be clarified to not affect fair dealing/use?

- Rob