Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Talk:Merchandising

2010-10-29T20:50:46Z

Alberto Cerda Silva:

:D
It seems nobody cares about the Merchandising Policy. Shouldn`t we call it the "Discouraging Merchandasing Policy" instead?
Anyway, here our comments to this instrument.

Having in mind the clause I (c) "Licensee acknowledges and agrees that as a result of CC’s long and widespread use and promotion of the CC Marks, the CC Marks are well-known and recognized by the general public and associated in the public mind with CC and CC goods and services." Naturally, this is a contractual obligations that does not affect any other person but the parties. Therefore, other people could use the CC Marks. Are you registering it in other countries? For which products, good or services? How do you expect to enforce it? Does a national team have any obligation reated to this?

Claudse VI (e) says, "Licensee acknowledges and agrees that all artwork and designs involving the CC Marks, or any reproductions, are and remain the property of CC, and Licensee is entitled to use them and to license the use of them to others only under the terms of this Policy (when permitted)."
Are you saying that artwork that involve the CC Marks is property of CC? Are you providing technical and legal assistance to draft contract and enforce those provisions? What's about CC Marks included in other's people artwork under fair use or analogous legal provisions (authoritations)? I have to say that this clause is a little disturbing for a CC's supporter. I would appreciate more explanation.

Thinking is the whole document, and in some impossible to practice cause, such the clause VII b), is the purpose of CC disencourage the use of the brand among affiliates? will you provide any flexibilities in a case-to-case basis?

That's all. Please, let us know when you post any answers.
Best,
A.

Alberto Cerda Silva.

[[Merchandising| Return to Merchandising Policy]]

To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.

This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --[[User:Michelle Thorne|Michelle Thorne]] 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Merchandising

2010-10-29T18:59:15Z

Alberto Cerda Silva:

:D
It seems nobody cares about the Merchandising Policy. Shouldn`t we call it the "Discouraging Merchandasing Policy" instead?
Anyway, here our comments to this instrument.

Having in mind the clause I (c) "Licensee acknowledges and agrees that as a result of CC’s long and widespread use and promotion of the CC Marks, the CC Marks are well-known and recognized by the general public and associated in the public mind with CC and CC goods and services." Naturally, this is a contractual obligations that does not affect any other person but the parties. Therefore, other people could use the CC Marks. Are you registering it in other countries? For which products, good or services? How do you expect to enforce it? Does a national team have any obligation reated to this?

Claudse VI (e) says, "Licensee acknowledges and agrees that all artwork and designs involving the CC Marks, or any reproductions, are and remain the property of CC, and Licensee is entitled to use them and to license the use of them to others only under the terms of this Policy (when permitted)."
Are you saying that artwork that involve the CC Marks is property of CC? Are you providing technical and legal assistance to draft contract and enforce those provisions? What's about CC Marks included in other's people artwork under fair use or analogous legal provisions (authoritations)? I have to say that this clause is a little disturbing for a CC's supporter. I would appreciate more explanation.

Thinking is the whole document, and in some impossible to practice cause, such the clause VII b), is the purpose of CC disencourage the use of the brand among affiliates? will you provide any flexibilities in a case-to-case basis?

That's all. Please, let you know when you post answers.
Best,
A.

Alberto Cerda Silva.

[[Merchandising| Return to Merchandising Policy]]

To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.

This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --[[User:Michelle Thorne|Michelle Thorne]] 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Merchandising

2010-10-29T18:58:59Z

Alberto Cerda Silva:

:D
It seems nobody cares about the Merchandising Policy. Shouldn`t we call it the "Discouraging Merchandasing Policy" instead?
Anyway, here our comments to this instrument.

Having in mind the clause I (c) "Licensee acknowledges and agrees that as a result of CC’s long and widespread use and promotion of the CC Marks, the CC Marks are well-known and recognized by the general public and associated in the public mind with CC and CC goods and services." Naturally, this is a contractual obligations that does not affect any other person but the parties. Therefore, other people could use the CC Marks. Are you registering it in other countries? For which products, good or services? How do you expect to enforce it? Does a national team have any obligation reated to this?

Claudse VI (e) says, "Licensee acknowledges and agrees that all artwork and designs involving the CC Marks, or any reproductions, are and remain the property of CC, and Licensee is entitled to use them and to license the use of them to others only under the terms of this Policy (when permitted)."
Are you saying that artwork that involve the CC Marks is property of CC? Are you providing technical and legal assistance to draft contract and enforce those provisions? What's about CC Marks included in other's people artwork under fair use or analogous legal provisions (authoritations)? I have to say that this clause is a little disturbing for a CC's supporter. I would appreciate more explanation.

Thinking is the whole document, and in some impossible to practice cause, such the clause VII b), is the purpose of CC disencourage the use of the brand among affiliates? will you provide any flexibilities in a case-to-case basis?

That's all. Please, let you know when you post answers.
Best,
A.

Alberto Cerda Silva.

[[Merchandising| Return to Merchandising Policy]]

To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.

This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --[[User:Michelle Thorne|Michelle Thorne]] 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:MOU

2010-10-29T18:39:35Z

Alberto Cerda Silva:

Hi there!
The comments of the Chilean team to the new MOU.

1.- Enforcement of the License.
According to the clause 1 (a) "The Jurisdiction Licenses shall be consistent with and have the same legal effect as the latest version of the international licenses (currently version 3.0), and be enforceable in the Jurisdiction (the process known as “license adaptation” or “license porting”)."
The way it has been drafted suggets an obligation in the results, which, in my opinion any team can granted. Instead it should be drafted as a obligatins in the means, but not in the results.

2.- CC0 and Domestic Law
According to the clause 1 (c) "Linguistic Translation of CC0. Affiliate agrees to participate in the linguistic translation of CC0 for the purpose of producing an approved translation of CC0, in adherence with the policies published by CC and made known to Affiliate. The parties will mutually agree on a timetable for producing an approved translation of CC0, together with any other designated leads in the process."
As I have explained in the ISP Policy, at least in Chile thre is not legal certainty that CC0 is a legal tool. In fact, there is an express legal provision that bans waive of rights by author. We have made some lobby at the Congress to get a change in the law, but we haven't been successful yet. We cannot implement a legal solution into the domestic level that is illegal, because it would undermine our credibility and the CC's credibility also.
Can that clause be omited in our MOU, at least for a while?

3.- Unknown CC Policies.
According to the clause I (h) "Further, Affiliate agrees to (...) adhere and publicly promulgate CC positions on matters relating to the public domain, license proliferation, and such other matters as CC makes known to Affiliate, including when responding to public inquiries."
May you provide us with a copy of the actual policies of the CC mentioned. I do not know the ones related with "the public domain, license proliferation,... and (... the one related to) responding to public inquiries".
Thanks.

4.- Hosting Draft of the CC license.
According to the clause II (c) (iii), "Affiliate shall not under any circumstances host or attempt to host any CC Legal Tools (whether in human-readable, lawyer-readable or machine-readable formats, or any other forms or formats whatsoever)."
During the process of discussing draft of the license (implementing process), draft of the license were posted in several places, including some of our own website. As a general policy, we do not delete content, because it undermines credibility, particularly if content does not infringe other people's right.
Should we deleted those draft wherever they are available? Should we inictiate any legal action against third parties that host those contents within our jurisdiction? We would appreciate more explanation.

5.- Data Protection Infringement.
We encourage you to deleted the clause II (d), because the obligation set forth in this about providing personal information infringes the data protection laws of several countries, incuding the European Union members, Chile, Argentina and mexico data protection laws.
Also, I don´t think is good policy show this careless with other jurisdictions law. Particularly in a mattter that is not sensible, but extremely sensitive in countries other than the U.S.

6.- Hosting content.
According to the clause III (a) "Hosting. CC is solely responsible for hosting any and all CC Legal Tools in human-readable, lawyer-readable and machine-readable formats, including without limitation the Jurisdiction Licenses, the international licenses (including translations thereof), and CC0 (and translations thereof)."
I repeat the same concerns that I have expressed previously in the second comment. CC0 is not clearly legal in our country, and we do not having full knowledge of other "international license". Can you let's know the latter ones? Can we drop the CC0 for a while (while it became clearly legal in our country)?

Those are our public concerns about the new MOU.
Thaks for answering to them.
best,
A.

Alberto Cerda Silva

[[MOU| Return to MOU]]

To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.

This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --[[User:Michelle Thorne|Michelle Thorne]] 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Internet Services

2010-10-29T18:07:20Z

Alberto Cerda Silva:

[[Internet Services| Return to Internet Services Policy]]

To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.

This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --[[User:Michelle Thorne|Michelle Thorne]] 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this policy include every type of social media platform used by jurisdictions? --[[User:Aurelia Schultz|Aurelia Schultz]] 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Section I.c.i has a typo in the reference to other sections. I assume you are trying to refer to sections labeled: "Registering in CC’s Name" and "Registering in Affiliate’s Name". Those are (d) and (e), not (e) and (f). [[User:JesseWeinstein|JesseWeinstein]] 06:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,
I seems no many people has been involved in the discussion over here.
Are you sure this is the best way to encourage people's participaction in this process?
Anyway, here my two cents; actually, three topics of the Internet Service Policy.

Clause II (a) says,
"Purpose of Project Website. The Project Website (if any) is to serve as the principal public information portal about the Project, which should include educational, research and promotional programs that encourage and enable the sharing of work within the Project jurisdiction through the use of the six Creative Commons licenses (...); and other legal instruments, such as the CC0 waiver, patent licenses, patent non-assert tools, and other previous and forthcoming licenses and tools published by CC (collectively “Legal Tools”).
- Q: Must the national websites encourage and include informaction about some legal tools that do not apply in their domestic jurisdiction? What's about if it is not clear if a given tool is consistent with domestic law? Including such information in those cases undermine the credibility of the national initiatives and domestic teams. This is the case of our team, in Chile, because it's not clear, for example, that CC0 can work legally, since the law expressly repelled waive of rights by authors.

Clause II (p) says,
"Items that cannot be hosted. The following items will be hosted on the CC HQ Website only: License drafts,..."
- Q.: During the process of discusion of the draft of the licenses in Chile, draft were made available on line in the website of the organization that host the initiative and several other electronic resources, some of them are not own. As a policy, we do not remove content from website, because it undermine public credibility... Should we remove draft made publicly available in order to discusse the national versions of the license?

Clause IV (d) says,
"Everyone with administrative access to an Internet Service registered to Creative Commons or hosted on CC’s servers agrees to comply with the Creative Commons Terms of Use..."
- Q.: How do you expect that national teams be in complaince with that obligation? Are you providing legal clause to be included in contract with workers, staff and/or volunteer of the national teams? To which extend national teams should enforce that obligations?

Best,
Alberto Cerda Silva

PD.: I would suggest that this discusion should have place in the mailing list rather than here.