So the question is: When the right to take back a
release in the event of a derogatory derivative is
reserved is it "free content"?
Birgitte SB
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, in certain countries the rights just cannot be
waived, from what
I have heard. Thus, if the author were to change
their mind about
their image being "free", they could take it back. I
don't know that
that legal right exists in the US. I can imagine
that many authors
would _want_ to make the image non-free again if
something like that
happened (the image were modified to mock them).
Mark
On 20/04/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
--- Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No matter how free is the image, the author will
always remain the
author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
Sorry I missed this comment on first reading.
Authorship is not the moral right in question.
The
question is about the moral rights effecting
derivatives which might be seen as distorting or
mulitating the work or somehow insulting the honor
of
the author. While the definition of freedom
says
derivative must be allowed "regardless of the
intent
and purpose of such modifications"
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around