On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito <jito(a)neoteny.com> wrote:
So here's the explanation from Chatharina Maracke,
the head of CCi.
> In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not
exist, the first part
> of the sentence "or as otherwise permitted by applicable law"
> explicitly makes an exception to the rest of the sentence "....to
> not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action
> in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original
> authors honor or reputation". This exception ensures that in a
> jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of
> the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by
> applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation
> permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if
> moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective
> law. The only problem here is the understanding of the wording "as
> otherwise permitted by applicable law". The right "to distort,
> mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to
> the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor
> or reputation" will not be explicitly allowed by applicable
> copyright law, but you need to know, that it is not prohibited, if
> moral rights are do not exist.
Yeah. The trouble is that when I read that sentence as conventional
English, rather than legal code, it still appears to me to mean that
the moral rights restriction exists as a usage restriction.
> However, I also see the point, that besides being
legally correct,
> CC licenses should be easily to understand. If people don't use CC
> licenses, because they don't understand them, we would have failed,
> even if the licenses are "accurate" in view of the law. We need to
> find the balance between legally well drafted licenses and a simple
> language. I agree, that the wording of the moral rights section in
> the "unported" license could probably have been drafted in a
> simpler way and less confusing so that everyone understands and it
> does not have to be discussed and explained in lots of E- mails.
As she says in the last paragraph, if we are not able
to be
understood in the end, we have failed. We'll try to make each of the
national licenses more clear. We'll also try to make the relevant
wording in the unported license easier to understand when we version
up. I just don't think we could fit a version up in the current
schedule while we're trying to get the local version 3's out of the
door right now.
I'm not a lawyer - my experience of copyright law is the internet sort
and pushing the bounds of fair use when criticising Scientology and so
forth ;-) OTOH, I'm probably the audience for the licence.
So if a clarification is feasible, that would be really good, yes!
- d.