[Foundation-l] Decision on Creative Commons 3.0

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 05:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 03/06/07, Mike Linksvayer <ml at 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_.E2.80.93_Moral_Rights

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

-- 
  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer