Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] CC-UK v.4.07/ CA v.8.2 [request for comments]

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Edward Barrow <edward AT copyweb.co.uk>
  • To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] CC-UK v.4.07/ CA v.8.2 [request for comments]
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:49:31 +0100


I apologise if the comments I make here revisit old ground; I have come
somewhat late into the process. Make of them what you will, and recognise
that these are offered in my individual capacity rather than representing the
views of any client. They also come without warranty.

(1) Objective of the internationalisation effort.
The CC-US site breaks the CC licences down into three parts: a human-readable
Deed, a lawyer-readable "legal code" and a machine-readable code. Clearly the
lawyer-readable "legal code" is jurisdiction-specific. Is the objective to
create a slot-in version of the legal code that will work in the UK, while
keeping the human-readable Deed parts the same?

If not, why not?

(2) The UK drafts are cast as bare licences while it appears that the US
licences are cast as contracts. Does this create an incompatibility?
(Incidentally, I have had some exchanges with US copyright lawyers on the CNI
list in which the US lawyers were unable to grasp the concept of a bare
licence; but I think the problem is semantic as I am sure they recognise that
a simple permission need not involve privity or consideration).
It may also be worth considering which tribunal would hear cases: County
court
for contract cases, High Court for copyright infringement/breach of licence.
Just a thought.

(3) Separating recitals
There are some parts of the document that would I think sit more happily as
recitals rather than as terms and conditions. I am thinking specifically of
those relating to CC itself, and also the point about fair dealing and other
defences.

(4) Collecting societies
I think the approach adopted works well but it doesn't seem to me to be
compatible with the waiver approach adopted in the US licence. (I can't
comment on whether the approach would be acceptable to my client the CLA).

OK, that's all for now. I hope to make further contributions to this process
once I am a little further up to speed with the objectives and the approach.

--
Edward Barrow
Copyright Consultant
edward AT copyweb.co.uk
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for important
information
about the legal status of this email




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page