Mike Linksvayer (Creative Commons staff) and Jimbo Wales have left comments in favour of accepting Creative Commons 3.0 into our own commons, but ultimately the decision seems to be up to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, as no one else is willing (or able) to make a final decision. The issues have been discussed ad nauseam, and it's decision time. Please make one soon.
Peter Halasz [[user:Pengo]]
Discussion below copied from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Creative_Commons_3....
I invited Creative Commons staff member Mike Linksvayer to weigh in on the discussion of CC-3.0, and he's left comments. The conversation has again gone stale since then: [[Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons 3.0]]. When are we going to move towards allowing CC-3.0 licenses, and who makes the decision? Are we just going to ignore it while there are lingering doubts? For people who want to allow Wikipedia to use their material, it's enough trouble to explain that they have to use BY or BY-SA licenses, and not the others listed on creativecommons.org. But it's just going too far having to say "you need to hunt down an outdated creative commons license... one which isn't even listed at creativecommons.org". The 3.0 licenses create no new conditions which don't already exist in law. Let's take them on already. [those are my thoughts, not CC's] Pengo 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the real important question is "who makes the decision?" But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On 6/3/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
I invited Creative Commons staff member Mike Linksvayer to weigh in on the discussion of CC-3.0, and he's left comments. The conversation has again gone stale since then: [[Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons 3.0]]. When are we going to move towards allowing CC-3.0 licenses, and who makes the decision? Are we just going to ignore it while there are lingering doubts? For people who want to allow Wikipedia to use their material, it's enough trouble to explain that they have to use BY or BY-SA licenses, and not the others listed on creativecommons.org. But it's just going too far having to say "you need to hunt down an outdated creative commons license... one which isn't even listed at creativecommons.org". The 3.0 licenses create no new conditions which don't already exist in law. Let's take them on already. [those are my thoughts, not CC's] Pengo 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The shift from enforcing things through moral right to enforcing them through copyright it itself significant.
I think the real important question is "who makes the decision?"But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Flickr still uses 2.5. deviant art appears to do the same. I see no reason to give in as yet. CC screwed up. That isn't our problem.
On 03/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Flickr still uses 2.5. deviant art appears to do the same. I see no reason to give in as yet. CC screwed up. That isn't our problem.
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.
I can see a question about whether to use CC licenses at all, but can't see any reason to use 2.5 and not 3.0.
SJ
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Peter Halasz wrote:
Mike Linksvayer (Creative Commons staff) and Jimbo Wales have left comments in favour of accepting Creative Commons 3.0 into our own commons, but ultimately the decision seems to be up to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, as no one else is willing (or able) to make a final decision. The issues have been discussed ad nauseam, and it's decision time. Please make one soon.
Peter Halasz [[user:Pengo]]
Discussion below copied from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Creative_Commons_3....
I invited Creative Commons staff member Mike Linksvayer to weigh in on the discussion of CC-3.0, and he's left comments. The conversation has again gone stale since then: [[Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons 3.0]]. When are we going to move towards allowing CC-3.0 licenses, and who makes the decision? Are we just going to ignore it while there are lingering doubts? For people who want to allow Wikipedia to use their material, it's enough trouble to explain that they have to use BY or BY-SA licenses, and not the others listed on creativecommons.org. But it's just going too far having to say "you need to hunt down an outdated creative commons license... one which isn't even listed at creativecommons.org". The 3.0 licenses create no new conditions which don't already exist in law. Let's take them on already. [those are my thoughts, not CC's] Pengo 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the real important question is "who makes the decision?" But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/3/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I can see a question about whether to use CC licenses at all, but can't see any reason to use 2.5 and not 3.0.
SJ
3.0 has some extra terms that are problimatical.
Samuel Klein wrote:
I can see a question about whether to use CC licenses at all, but can't see any reason to use 2.5 and not 3.0.
Version 3.0 includes the following language restricting modifications, which is not included in 2.5:
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
-Mark
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:38 -0400, Delirium wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I can see a question about whether to use CC licenses at all, but can't see any reason to use 2.5 and not 3.0.
Version 3.0 includes the following language restricting modifications, which is not included in 2.5:
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
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
On 03/06/07, Mike Linksvayer ml@creativecommons.org 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.
I do still have to ask:
What on *earth* were you all thinking?
- d.
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 05:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/06/07, Mike Linksvayer ml@creativecommons.org 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.
I do still have to ask:
What on *earth* were you all thinking?
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80...
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
On 6/3/07, Mike Linksvayer ml@creativecommons.org wrote:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80...
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
Yes but English and Welsh law allows you to waive your moral rights. Yet no attempt has been made to try and utilise that clause.
In addition the adoption of free software to at least an extent by various European governments means that failing to fix that situation if it were to arise would be monumentally stupid.
Yes but English and Welsh law allows you to waive your moral rights. [...]
geni
[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.
On 6/3/07, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but English and Welsh law allows you to waive your moral rights. [...]
geni
[citation needed]
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) section 87
Citations also needed for waiving of moral rights being illegal;
I can't find a way to waive them under South Korean law:
http://www.copyright.or.kr/copye/main.asp?ht=./law/law_b_koe.htm&ca=6&am...
On 03/06/07, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
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.
IANAL, but that's not how I would interpret the language. "Except as may be otherwise pemitted by applicable law" to me means if there is a law that specifically says you can do something, then you can do it. It doesn't say that if there is a lack of a law that says you can't, then you can.
If I were you, I wouldn't wait until 4.0 to change the wording, release a 3.1 like you would if you spotted a major bug in a piece of software you'd written.
On 6/3/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any
Adaptations
or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial
to
the Original Author's honor or reputation."
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.
IANAL, but that's not how I would interpret the language. "Except as may be otherwise pe[r]mitted by applicable law" to me means if there is a law that specifically says you can do something, then you can do it. It doesn't say that if there is a lack of a law that says you can't, then you can.
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
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)?
Again, IANAL, but as far as I know, intent is only relevant when the wording is ambiguous. I don't think it is in this case, it's perfectly clear to me what it means, and that just isn't what the authors intended it to mean.
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:38 -0400, Delirium wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I can see a question about whether to use CC licenses at all, but can't see any reason to use 2.5 and not 3.0.
Version 3.0 includes the following language restricting modifications, which is not included in 2.5:
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
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.
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 03/06/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
Mike Linksvayer (Creative Commons staff) and Jimbo Wales have left comments in favour of accepting Creative Commons 3.0 into our own commons, but ultimately the decision seems to be up to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, as no one else is willing (or able) to make a final decision. The issues have been discussed ad nauseam, and it's decision time. Please make one soon.
I think the real important question is "who makes the decision?"But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's begging the question. Where they've written moral rights into the copyright license, I'd question whether it is free content.
I have (and see so far) no objection to the CC pd, by, sa and by-sa 3.0 licenses *without* the moral rights jammed into the license itself.
- d.
On Sun, June 3, 2007 05:09, David Gerard wrote:
That's begging the question. Where they've written moral rights into the copyright license, I'd question whether it is free content. I have (and see so far) no objection to the CC pd, by, sa and by-sa 3.0 licenses *without* the moral rights jammed into the license itself.
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org