We have a problem getting people to accept free licenses. One of the issues is that, at least in some countries, conditions stating that the authors allows any usage of his image for any duration are ruled illegal by courts (should the author complain), as abusive clauses. The idea is to protect authors from abuse by greedy publishers. I've even heard some lawyer from a photographers' society explaining to me that free licenses (including Creative Commons etc.) where thus illegal.
Lately, in a private email, Greg Maxwell made a remark that I had made in other circumstances, that is
For example, surely the 'share alike' nature of copyleft contracts prevents the contracts from being considered unconscionable. Such licenses would be acceptable for our purposes.
Indeed, that's one point that we may argue: with "sharealike" licenses, the authors do not cede all rights with no compensation or insurance; they rather have strong guarantees that uses of their work will not stray from their intent of distribution of free content.
That's one argument one may want to pursue when contacting sources.
Regards, DM
On Nov 21, 2006, at 10:19 AM, David Monniaux wrote:
We have a problem getting people to accept free licenses. One of the issues is that, at least in some countries, conditions stating that the authors allows any usage of his image for any duration are ruled illegal by courts (should the author complain), as abusive clauses. The idea is to protect authors from abuse by greedy publishers. I've even heard some lawyer from a photographers' society explaining to me that free licenses (including Creative Commons etc.) where thus illegal.
Lately, in a private email, Greg Maxwell made a remark that I had made in other circumstances, that is
For example, surely the 'share alike' nature of copyleft contracts prevents the contracts from being considered unconscionable. Such licenses would be acceptable for our purposes.
Indeed, that's one point that we may argue: with "sharealike" licenses, the authors do not cede all rights with no compensation or insurance; they rather have strong guarantees that uses of their work will not stray from their intent of distribution of free content.
That's one argument one may want to pursue when contacting sources.
It might be helpful if it could be shown that the creator received something in return for their "free" license. We could, for example, offer to publish their work on a top 20 website, thus assuring wide distribution of their work. This actually makes sense as it creates a potential market for their other work, should they try to sell it.
Fred
On 11/22/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
We have a problem getting people to accept free licenses. One of the issues is that, at least in some countries, conditions stating that the authors allows any usage of his image for any duration are ruled illegal by courts (should the author complain), as abusive clauses. The idea is to protect authors from abuse by greedy publishers. I've even heard some lawyer from a photographers' society explaining to me that free licenses (including Creative Commons etc.) where thus illegal.
Does anyone know of cases where this has actually happened? Also, does this relate to any particular legislation? I've only ever heard of this sort of thing in consumer protection or trade practices legislation.
If there are such situations, I would imagine that they would be concerning terms in contracts between the author of some kind of material (such as a book) and their publisher. I don't see how they could be a problem where a copyright holder themselves publishes the material under a licence.
Remember also that we consider anyone who submits content to the projects to be publishing it themselves, and we're just distributing the material. If someone decides to publish material under a copyleft licence, that's entirely their decision. The law isn't going to step in and protect them from themselves.
Lately, in a private email, Greg Maxwell made a remark that I had made in other circumstances, that is
For example, surely the 'share alike' nature of copyleft contracts prevents the contracts from being considered unconscionable. Such licenses would be acceptable for our purposes.
Indeed, that's one point that we may argue: with "sharealike" licenses, the authors do not cede all rights with no compensation or insurance; they rather have strong guarantees that uses of their work will not stray from their intent of distribution of free content.
Indeed. Unless a certain term is expressly invalidated by legislation, I can't think that there would be any unconscionability (or whatever element is required in whatever test is used) in the situation of copyleft licencing to warrant the invalidation of a term.
Although again I would like to see some actual examples of where this has happened, if there are any.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org