169:...In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist, ... we have to respect moral rights (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether we like it or not. ...In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective law.
145:" related to a work. Moral rights, as defined by most legal systems, include the right to "the integrity of the work", barring the work from alteration, distortion or mutilation. Because such rights can prevent using works in ways that the author disagrees with, many believe that moral rights can make an image "unfree". Since some users believed that the clause applied moral rights to a work that may not have had moral rights applied otherwise, the license was not recommended at first while users discussed what the clause meant.
73:
93:
273:
53:
83:
155:, "The problem with some variants of the CC licenses is that the wording of them appears to make moral rights apply in countries that don't have such laws. Thus, they're a blatant usage restriction, and the wording in question seems unduly onerous as well. But if this is not in fact the case I'm sure Joichi will eventually come back to this thread and clarify how the licenses don't mean what they appear to mean."
103:
63:
201:
be used generally, whether in a nation like Japan that (apparently) has strong enforcement of moral-rights claims or in a nation like the United States, where moral rights claims are weakly enforced if at all, and where moral-rights claims are severely constrained by national legal norms. The preceding can be interpreted as restating what CC's counsel has said on the subject.
113:
200:
In effect, CC 3.0 seems to me to be written NOT to *enforce* a restrictive vision of moral rights but INSTEAD to *dodge* or *avoid* the question of whether and how moral rights should be enforced under a particular nation's laws. The clear aim, it seems to me, is to allow the same CC 3.0 language to
166:
Generally speaking, moral rights have to be addressed in the unported license to assure that this license would be enforceable by law in every jurisdiction, whether moral rights are exist or not. The criticism, that the wording of the moral rights section in the unported license could be read as if
180:
weighed in as well, saying, "I am on the board of
Creative Commons and thus privy to the discussions. I think there is a clumsy wording here that needs to be clarified for non lawyers, but all the lawyers say the same thing: no additional moral rights in countries where those laws do not apply."
167:
the licensee has the obligation "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" in every jurisdiction, even if moral rights are do not exist, is not legally correct.
374:
343:
106:
76:
66:
290:
209:
that given the opinions of Ito, Wales and Godwin, and a lack of objection to the license, that the license should be accepted. On Monday, Commons officially began accepting CC 3.0 licenses, adding them to the
116:
173:
Ito also promised that in the next version of the unported license, and in this version of the national licenses, that the distinction would be made more clear, and easier for non-lawyers to understand.
96:
33:
39:
322:
251:
332:
259:
327:
255:
312:
243:
86:
317:
247:
302:
235:
307:
239:
284:
442:
21:
418:
355:
413:
408:
206:
362:
403:
56:
391:
134:
After months of debate over whether the newest
Creative Commons licenses could be considered "free licenses", the
398:
272:
17:
211:
347:
218:
424:
8:
189:
159:
152:
149:
177:
135:
193:
205:
This weekend, a few weeks after discussion had died down on the subject, it was
185:
436:
142:
126:
162:
from
Catharina Maracke, the head of Creative Commons International:
138:
3.0 licenses were accepted as acceptable licenses for media.
141:
The debate centered mainly on a clause centering on "
360:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
434:
124:
371:No comments yet. Yours could be the first!
363:
14:
435:
221:were introduced on February 23, 2007.
148:In a mailing list discussion in July,
443:Knowledge Signpost archives 2007-08
34:CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons
27:
271:
192:from Wikimedia Foundation counsel
28:
454:
111:
101:
91:
81:
71:
61:
51:
356:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
219:Creative Commons 3.0 licenses
339:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
10:
459:
276:
203:
171:
386:What do you think of
275:
198:
164:
392:Share your feedback.
353:To follow comments,
214:on the upload form.
158:Ito replied with an
323:Features and admins
252:Features and admins
348:Discuss this story
333:Arbitration report
277:
364:purging the cache
328:Technology report
263:
230:Also this week:
184:Later that week,
450:
427:
367:
365:
359:
346:
295:
287:
280:
228:
212:license selector
136:Creative Commons
129:
115:
114:
105:
104:
95:
94:
85:
84:
75:
74:
65:
64:
55:
54:
458:
457:
453:
452:
451:
449:
448:
447:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
423:
421:
416:
411:
406:
401:
394:
383:
382:
377:
375:+ Add a comment
372:
369:
361:
354:
351:
350:
344:+ Add a comment
342:
338:
337:
336:
288:
283:
281:
278:
266:
265:
264:
232:CC 3.0 approved
131:
130:
123:
122:
121:
112:
102:
92:
82:
72:
62:
52:
46:
43:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
456:
446:
445:
422:
417:
412:
407:
402:
397:
396:
395:
385:
384:
381:
380:
379:
378:
373:
370:
352:
349:
341:
340:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
313:News and notes
310:
305:
300:
294:
285:13 August 2007
282:
270:
269:
268:
267:
244:News and notes
227:
226:
224:
168:
132:
120:
119:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
36:
35:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
455:
444:
441:
440:
438:
426:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
393:
389:
376:
366:
357:
345:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
292:
286:
279:In this issue
274:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
225:
222:
220:
215:
213:
208:
202:
197:
195:
191:
187:
182:
179:
175:
170:
163:
161:
156:
154:
151:
146:
144:
139:
137:
128:
118:
110:
108:
100:
98:
90:
88:
80:
78:
70:
68:
60:
58:
50:
49:
41:
23:
19:
388:The Signpost
387:
297:
291:all comments
231:
229:
223:
216:
204:
199:
196:, who said,
188:forwarded a
186:Erik Moeller
183:
176:
172:
165:
157:
150:David Gerard
147:
143:moral rights
140:
133:
57:PDF download
425:Suggestions
318:In the news
260:Arbitration
248:In the news
194:Mike Godwin
178:Jimbo Wales
160:explanation
107:X (Twitter)
303:Bug review
256:Technology
236:Bug review
45:Share this
40:Contribute
22:2007-08-13
419:Subscribe
308:WikiWorld
240:WikiWorld
207:suggested
437:Category
414:Newsroom
409:Archives
97:Facebook
87:LinkedIn
77:Mastodon
20: |
190:message
298:CC 3.0
127:Ral315
117:Reddit
67:E-mail
31:CC 3.0
404:About
16:<
399:Home
217:The
153:said
125:By
42:—
439::
390:?
258:—
254:—
250:—
246:—
242:—
238:—
234:—
368:.
358:.
293:)
289:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.