Nothing is enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights... It would seem that the right to license one's own work as one chooses is one of those rights. How does French law resolve that conflict? Surely after 200 years there should be some illustrative cases. Fred

Indeed. It always starts with the finer details of CC 3.0. and it may well end in genocide. On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Moral rights is one of the core values which used to be defended at least in the past, at least by a few community members. Things are changing so quickly these days that I can be sure of nothing, but it seems to be still the case today as shown on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_e… with wording such as "retain the right to be attributed" and "I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights" (personnality rights might be something a little different from authorship's moral rights, but the respect of personality rights is also a way of showing respect to universal human dignity) It is even more clear with the French version of that template at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Messages_type with the wording "je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre" which is synonymous with "I don't waive the moral rights I own on my work". In particular, I remember the following talk we had on the French village pump where we discussed whether it was cruel to require people to agree with the Declaration of consent for all enquiries, with some people expressing that what we are asking them to agree with is too harsh, some of them ending up not wanting to agree to more than a NC (Non Commercial) license : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro/archives/avril_2009#Autori… My view is that with a standard GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-SA 1.0 there is a middle ground with some rights waived and some rights reserved, even if they allow commercial use. I think it is important to convey throughout the reuse chain the feeling that the reusers are grateful to the content creator for having created the content. And that gratefulness or recognition (that someone did a good work, or an average work, but in all events, a work good enough for reuse) is expressed by attribution. There is also another line of doctrine which says that attribution is a tribute, which is the symbolic price paid for the work by the reuser. Under that doctrine, a free work would no longer be called a "free as free beer" work, but a symbolically paid work. A long time ago, people used to pay works with wikimoney. It may look a bit childish, or a waste of time, but I think the symbolic message of wikimoney is great : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:WikiMonnaie&ol… . Is conveying gratefulness feelings to other human beings a waste of time ? I think reusers should keep in their minds that the wikimoney is the attribution. If you attribute the work correctly and follow all the other license's requirements (like adding a link to the legal code on the creativecommons.org website) you are symbolically paying some wikimoney for the work. But I think it is not possible to promote such values and at the same time be friends with the people who create and promote the CC Zero license. I think it is extremely embarassing to see the Creative Commons website promote CC Zero for the Open Clip Art library. What wrong have SVG graphic designers done to be treated in such a harsh way ? Enabling anybody to build upon their work with no duty to share alike ? Enabling anybody to reuse their work without crediting them ? Why isn't there anybody defending them ? Don't they deserve that minimal symbolic payment that is attribution ? Are they such under-citizens that they don't even deserve the minimal rights ? http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_use_for_data#Open_Clip_Art_Library I also think it is difficult to be friends with Open Street View, given the so strange way they use a creative commons attribution license. Attribution means providing the name that identifies the creator personally. Writing the sentence "Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above that to “OpenStreetMap contributors” " is an act of dehumanization. They don't actually request this. They are compelled to choose between agreeing with this harsh treatment or not participate at all. They are never asked what they really want, if they would like to be personally attributed or not. And they are never taught that as a human being they deserve that minimal recognition feeling which is attribution. If you don't teach people that they have rights, they will never be able to be strong and defend themselves. So there is a big need to educate people that as content creators, they have the right to be attributed.

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Are you quite serious? --vvv

2011/3/4 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: Thanks for your warm feelings and also for ruling out that anybody can change his/her mind (including myself). That when they have started voting for something, they must go on voting for the same thing their life long. For ruling out that people having different views can live together. That the minority view is the wrong view.

2011/3/4 Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com>om>: Until the 2009 license change, there was a narrow path with GFDL, enabling to build Wikipedia in each country without breaking too many laws (1). But with the 2009 license change, WMF is behaving like a bull in a china shop. (1) Even if you did everything right with Moral Rights, the French law is still broken in a couple of places. But this is not a scoop. Remember what Lawrence Lessig said about German law in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto/2/En-5

This thread is at a bit too theoretical a plane for me to follow in detail. (As it happens, I'm a lawyer, but of course not a French lawyer.) Can someone give a specific instance (theoretical or historical) where the assertion of droit moral as applied to wiki content beyond what is expressly preserved in the license would actually come up as a practical matter? In my experience, most assertions on-wiki of moral rights have been in the context of editing disputes, but I know there is a deeper philosophical and legal issue involved here than occasional passing legal threats. FWIW, there is some discussion of a related issue in an arbitration decision I wrote (RfAr/Alastair Haines 2). Basically, what we said was that submitting one's work to Wikipedia, by the very nature of our collaborative editing process, means that one is surrendering the ability to preserve the work intact to a greater extent than by submitting it elsewhere. If one believes it's important that one's writing be presented as submitted, without change, then Wikipedia is not the right forum for it, regardless of the merits of the content. Newyorkbrad On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Arlen Beiler <arlenbee(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2011/3/4 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>om>: A vote is an expression of will. If people are so confused in their heads that their vote does not reflect what they want, it is a problem.