Difference between revisions of "ToT Comments"
Miakgarlick (talk | contribs) (→Legal Issues) |
(→Legal Issues) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes? | So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes? | ||
| + | --Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007 | ||
| − | + | Hi Mia | |
| + | Thanks for the response. I am sure the project is intended for the benefit of the people you suggest but I feel it is a sad direction to take CC in. It is basically trying to unscramble an egg. If I base a project on a specific piece of information or technology because it has an open licence, and it is important to me that future people will be able to interact with the information, technology and derivatives freely, then I do not see how rescinding the openness once people have created interacting information, technology, and community can be anything but destructive. It is creative licensing, it is not in the spirit of the word 'commons'. I am very disappointed to see a group which describes itself as being interested in free culture and commons encourage this kind of transient openness. This time the window of openness is 35 years. The DMCA/EUCD is being exported around the world making access to information more restrictive and conditional. If the CC team promotes this 'feature' of copyright law you can be sure that the length of time will be reduced and the allowances for derivative works will be as easily rescinded as the overall transfer. I'm sorry but I cannot see how this contributes towards a 'creative commons'. Surely there is something promoting an enduring commons that the CC can spend its efforts towards? | ||
Revision as of 12:08, 3 January 2007
This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the *BETA* Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.
Useability
Functionality
Text Issues
Legal Issues
So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?
--Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007
Hi Mia Thanks for the response. I am sure the project is intended for the benefit of the people you suggest but I feel it is a sad direction to take CC in. It is basically trying to unscramble an egg. If I base a project on a specific piece of information or technology because it has an open licence, and it is important to me that future people will be able to interact with the information, technology and derivatives freely, then I do not see how rescinding the openness once people have created interacting information, technology, and community can be anything but destructive. It is creative licensing, it is not in the spirit of the word 'commons'. I am very disappointed to see a group which describes itself as being interested in free culture and commons encourage this kind of transient openness. This time the window of openness is 35 years. The DMCA/EUCD is being exported around the world making access to information more restrictive and conditional. If the CC team promotes this 'feature' of copyright law you can be sure that the length of time will be reduced and the allowances for derivative works will be as easily rescinded as the overall transfer. I'm sorry but I cannot see how this contributes towards a 'creative commons'. Surely there is something promoting an enduring commons that the CC can spend its efforts towards?
