On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yep. I really don't know precisely what CC was thinking with these, but I submit that this is a case where it's *really important* to keep in mind that CC's aims are not necessarily ours, however nice people they are (and they are). - d.

On 6/3/07, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: 3.0 has some extra terms that are problimatical. -- geni

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:38 -0400, Delirium wrote: The language is not intended to introduce moral rights where none exist (which is basically only the U.S.) -- "Except ... as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law" -- e.g., in the U.S. mutilation (or whatever) is permitted because there is no right of integrity that prohibits it. In retrospect wording like "In those jurisdictions in which the right of integrity exists, and except ..." would have made this more obvious. We will put this in the hopper for 4.0, which hopefully is a very long way off. However, I do not see how 3.0 can reasonably be thought to endanger the commons (generic and Wikimedia Commons in particular) as it does not attempt to add any restriction beyond what is inherent in each jurisdiction's moral rights or lack thereof. Note that I work for CC but am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. Mike -- http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 05:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.8… The key is probably [European] courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include [moral rights]. Note that the 3.0 US jurisdiction licenses do not contain this language, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode -- http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

[citation needed] Citations also needed for waiving of moral rights being illegal; almost no moral rights applying in the USA and that they can be waived in Canada <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3bbnf3>; and moral rights only protecting against libel (stronger than prejudicial to honor or reputation) which would make them redundant. Stallman's comment at <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ynv35> is not specifically about version 3, but he writes that because the rights in that case is limited based on the country you're in, he doesn't support it. Using the FSF's definition, only CC3.us and CC3.ca is free. The commons community must decide if allowing non-free CC3s is acceptable. -- user:Jeandré du Toit

On 03/06/07, Jack &lt;jackdt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The answer to your last question is a flat "no." The only pass is for WMF logos, etc. used across projects. Saying "but some countries' courts might not like it if we didn't put in a morals clause" doesn't make it magically a free license. - d.

On 6/3/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That's how I read it as well, in part because the wording is that "The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions". If this is a limitation on the grant of license, I don't see how else to read it (inside the US). I'm not sure what courts would do. Would they would look to the intent of the CC lawyers, or would they look to the intent of the copyright owner? Could the license be interpreted differently in different court cases (obviously yes, but it could it *legitimately* be interpreted differently)? This is depressing, because it points out just how difficult it is to create a free license which works consistently in as many jurisdictions as possible. International copyright law is so incredibly confusing. Anthony

Mike Linksvayer wrote: You can't paper this over by saying that this is only a US problem. Weak as it may be US copyright law does have a moral rights clause. This involves how fundamental legal conceptions differ between countries that draw their law from English Common Law and those that draw their law from the Napoleonic Code. Need we refight the Battle of Waterloo? The United States involvement in the War of 1812 still did not lead to its abandonment of English common law in favour of Napoleonic law. The Napoleonic attitude seems to suggest that anything that the author or his heirs or the state don't like is by definition derogatory and prejudicial to the author's honour and reputation. In common law countries such claims need to be proved. In some, moral rights expire with the author's death; in others it does not extend longer than copyrights. The expression, "Except ... as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law" is completely misleading unless we are certain about what applicable law is being referenced. Adding such weasel words to an agreement will solve nothing. The internet and the WMF web sites are international in their operations, even when the corporate headquarters must necessarily be in one country. French courts have found the colorization of American movies to be a breach of moral rights, and the Spanish courts are dealing with a claim by the Juan Miró estate against eBay (an American company) over whether certain variations in one of their logos violated Miró's moral rights. What is the "applicable law" in these circumstances? Do we really want something that is perfectly legal in the contributor's home country to be penalized in some other country's courts. The wording of CC3.0's moral rights clause may very well be drawn from international convention, but the fact remains that even if a country adopts such conventions interpretation of the problem terms will remain in accordance with domestic law. Ec

On Sun, June 3, 2007 05:09, David Gerard wrote: Thing is, as I read it (ianaleither but I've been around UK copyright and moral rights a long time) all they have done is make explicit in their version 3 licence what already exists in law. Copyright and Moral Rights exist together but also separate and whilst older CC licences have dealt with the Copyright aspect they've ignored the Moral Rights side. Given that the law (well, the UK one - Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act) is quite explicit that the Moral Rights exist then to add an initial 'yes we recognise that moral rights exist' into the new licence seems a very sensible thing to do. And given that those terms are not adding or subtracting anything from the status quo on moral rights then I fail to see why the concern. Alison Wheeler