[Commons-l] CC by 3.0 not allowed on Commons?

[geni]

On 7/14/07, Fruggo <fruggo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might
> be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well,
> at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just
> apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch
> copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't
> just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means
> that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S
>
> (please tell me I'm on the wrong track here)
>
> -Fruggo

Well before you get that far you would be needing to show that such
contracts (ie ones with zero consideration) are legal under the law of
the Netherlands.

Assuming they are we can start to get onto the issues you raised.

Additionally the Netherlands is a member of the EU so should have an
equivalent of  The Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006.

Copyright law was not written with the idea of free licenses in mind.
Copyright law was not even really writen with people in mind. It is
quite hard to aviod breaking at least some aspects of copyright law in
day to day life.

-- 
geni