Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>If a model release warning was included that just
clarified that such
>issues exist, like with Moral Rights, this wouldn't be a
compatibility
>issue. If the licence placed stronger constraints on the
user than exist
>in law genrerally then this would be both a
compatibility issue and a
>very bad idea.
I think that there is a warning that lawyers are supposed to
be able to
understand. (But being a non-lawyer, I could be wrong).
Some might have pointed this out, but the -1.0 licenses did
include some
rights clearances. After version 1.0, only the warranty
disclaimer type
of provision is left at the corresponding part.
Here is a quote from CC-BY-1.0's "5. Representations,
Warranties
and Disclaimer"
--quote--
a. By offering the Work for public release under this
License,
Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of
Licensor's
knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
i. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work
necessary to
grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful
exercise
of the rights granted hereunder without You having any
obligation to
pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any
other
payments;
ii. The Work does not infringe the copyright,
trademark,
publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of
any third
party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other
tortious
injury to any third party.
--end of quote--
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
>So IMHO model release *requirements* should *not* be in
the license.
>
>Model releases are an educational problem not a license
language
>problem. There are many more issues that the license
doesn't cover:
>trademarks, patents, trade secrets, personality and
publicity rights,
>hull designs, seed rights, etc., etc. . What should be
in the license
>(and on the license deed, and in the FAQ) is a general
warning that you
>need to make sure that you have all the rights you need
and that the CC
>license is only a copyright license.
The departure from the warranty provision quoted above is
understandable in
my opinion. After all, the licensor might or might not be
aware of
the clause, and the rights might or might not be cleared.
After all,
they are amateurs. So I am not sure how reliable their
warranties are.
Compared to that, an explicit choice made by the licensor to
signal that rights are cleared is a lot better. So an
additional
license element is better than a warranty.
But I think the idea behind the departure from this warranty
was that some third party can come and provide warranty
(for a fee, for example). Such a service have not happened I
suppose.
Still, that would be a better course of development than an
additional
license element.
Anyway, I wish there will be some solution to this.
The content must be freed from people's rights to be freely
usable.
And what we want is freely usable works, not just works free
from
licensors' copyrights. But in while that becomes a reality,
we have to learn what kind of rights are potentially related
to a
use of a CC-licensed work. FAQ on this matter is very good
resource
for many concerned non-lawyer users, in my opinion.
By the way, I thought, you, Rob, agreed that free content
should be free of many different types of rights. Discussion
below is what I managed to remember.
http:
//freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk efinitio
n/Unstable&oldid=2129#Scope_of_the_rights_covered
Best,
Tomos
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
efinitio
n/Unstable&oldid=2129#Scope_of_the_rights_covered