Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 11:19AM, Andres Guadamuz 
<a.guadamuz AT ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>IMO, nothing could be done because there are strong philosophical and
>ethical principles embedded in open source and Creative Commons licences
>that enshrine freedom of expression and forbid any discrimination of fields
>of endeavour in the licence. For example, the CC baseline rights state that
>"other people's fair use, first sale, and free expression rights are not
>affected by the license". This certainly would include the BNP, even if the
>owner objects to the way in which their work is being used (or abused).

Yes.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways. The photographer can point out how 
ridiculous the BNP would look using their photograph. That could be very 
effective, indeed it could do more than the BNP *not* using the image if 
handled well.

Given that a recent BNP christmas party turned away a black DJ who "sounded 
white over the phone" when he was being booked, they seem to have their own 
set of -erm- principles regarding the sources of cultural material that they 
use...

>This is where moral rights would be useful, as in my opinion this could
>constitute "prejudice or damage to honour or reputation" in the sense of the
>integrity right. However, I don't really want to re-open the moral rights
>can of worms, enough has been said about that in this list.

This is a case where they could be useful. And under the last CC-EW draft 
with rights in it should be possible (IANAL). But people need to be careful, 
as this would allow the BNP (for example) to exert the same control over 
images *they* CC'd. Any method one can find of silencing one's own critics in 
this way can presumably be used to silence oneself.

Aside from moral rights, making the work ND as well as NC to ensure that it 
is not creatively cropped, montaged or labelled would be a good step.

The other possibility is an "exploit" mis-using the linkback URL requirement. 
Provide a linkback URL containing the license *and* anti-racist staements and 
links. That would hopefully put off anyone who didn't want to provide free 
publicity against racism. If they didn't put the URL in, they'd be breaking 
the license and couldn't use the image anyway.

Hmmm. Is that a hole that needs plugging in 3.0 ? :-)

- Rob.