Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 21 Mar 2006, at 20:26, Jordan Hatcher wrote:

> The change you mention is aimed to address some concerns over  
> reputation similar to moral rights aspects of copyright.
>
> I believe that this is one of the differences between the 2.5  
> generic licence and the 2.0 generic licence put out by CC last year.
>
> Because E and W was drafted when the 2.0 generic version was the  
> standard, that element is not reflected in the 2.0 E and W.  I  
> believe that there are plans to update this licence accordingly,  
> but I am sure that someone from the team can answer this better  
> than I.

Removal goes back to the 1.0 generic licenses, but it was made  
tighter in 2.5 .

> The Scottish licence, drafted slightly later in time than the EandW  
> licence, complies with the new 2.5 standard:

Checking the URL (d'oh) I see I am looking at the 2.0 EnW licence.  
The CC website won't show me the 2.5 one. Has that not gone live yet?  
If not, can removal be made explicit in it? :-)

And on 21 Mar 2006, at 20:33, copyleftmedia wrote:

>  I am
> sure that this eventuality could be negotiated between the two parties
> under English law, but is it really necessary in the license?

If it would not be guaranteed under the law and it is considered  
appropriate for some reason then yes.

There is a similar clause in the GPL 3.0 draft, and the Debian Free  
Software Guidelines clause 4 covers this in spirit so it is,  
surprisingly, not non-Free.

> removing
> content or association with a work is surely an agreement under
> extenuating circumstances between two parties, rather than something
> which CC itself should be concerned with?

The intersection of moral rights (such as the right of paternity)  
with free culture is something that is majorly under-discussed.

Would removal of attribution be covered by the right of paternity  
under English&Welsh law? I could see why the clause would be left out  
if it was considered redundant for this reason. But does content made  
for or released by companies rather than individuals have moral  
rights? That is, if Channel 23 release a news item BY-SA-EnW 2.5 and  
I produce a derivative that could be harmful to Channel 23's  
reputation, would they be able to assert any moral rights?

> we are purely concerned with
> the hows of licensing the derivative material in the first place, not
> its removal?

It's the removal of attribution, not the material. I believe that  
asserting your integrity right could force attribution removal,  
although I haven't investigated this and await correction from the  
lawyers on the list. :-)

- Rob.