Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Are Creative Commons Licenses Even Enforceable?
Renegade:
No, you can not waive copyright. You can not waive copyright and place your works in the public domain, either. That is not a legal option available to the creator. You are stuck with your copyright, whether you want it or not.
-app103 (August 25, 2013, 03:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not really sure I buy it.
(Really, take the time to read the article, if you haven't yet. It raises some really good questions and makes some very good points.)
-app103 (August 25, 2013, 03:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
Still not sure I buy it.
From a purely US-centric view of law, well... whatever. As far as I can see, that's just a game of trying to predict what the courts will recognize or enforce, and not particularly interesting.
The more interesting thing seems to be the discussion about copyright/public domain/etc.
To mitigate the risk of getting this thread sent to the Basement, I'll merely post links without comment:
http://falkvinge.net/2013/08/25/talking-back-lessons-retorts-to-taking-without-paying/
http://falkvinge.net/2013/08/23/economics-101-for-newcomers-to-discussion-on-sharing/
Some interesting things on the topic there, though from a different perspective.
Once it is figured out *what* these things are, then the "legal" debates seem to make more sense (not that anything in the debate make sense - merely that red herrings are then obvious).
40hz:
No, you can not waive copyright. You can not waive copyright and place your works in the public domain, either. That is not a legal option available to the creator. You are stuck with your copyright, whether you want it or not.
-app103 (August 25, 2013, 03:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not really sure I buy it.
-Renegade (August 25, 2013, 09:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
Actually, that is the case. It's come up in court.
And April is right about you not being able to directly assign something to public domain in the USA. In 1979 they 'clarified' the rule. The only way something enters US public domain now is when the copyright naturally expires. The old method of electing to "immediately expire" your own copyright no longer applies. Copyright can't be waived. However, the rights granted under it can be abandoned - which amounts to the same thing.
...you can voluntarily abandon your United States copyrights:
It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960).
.
.
.
Most documents have a conventional location for a copyright notice (e.g., the bottom of page 1 of a scientific paper). You can write "Public domain" in this location rather than "Copyright 2005," "Copyright 2006," etc. This, by itself, clearly satisfies the "overt act" test.
You can write a subsequent document saying "I hereby place my paper `On The Origin Of Species' into the public domain." This, by itself, clearly satisfies the "overt act" test.
--- End quote ---
-------------------------------------
From a purely US-centric view of law, well... whatever.-Renegade (August 25, 2013, 09:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well...the USA is where the bulk of us here at DoCo live...and US law is what we have to live under so...whatever. Like the old disclaimer says: "The law gives you specific rights. You may also have other rights, which may vary from state to state."
:P
app103:
To mitigate the risk of getting this thread sent to the Basement, I'll merely post links without comment:
http://falkvinge.net/2013/08/25/talking-back-lessons-retorts-to-taking-without-paying/
http://falkvinge.net/2013/08/23/economics-101-for-newcomers-to-discussion-on-sharing/
Some interesting things on the topic there, though from a different perspective.
-Renegade (August 25, 2013, 09:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how any of that relates to Creative Commons licenses. Don't forget, Creative Commons licenses allow for more than mere sharing. A CC-BY license pretty much allows one to do anything, as long as they give credit...anything.
He even says
(Another special case of contracts have an exchange of value is not discussed here, as they don’t concern brief and efficient interactions on a free marketplace, but significantly more complex, long-term relationships.)
--- End quote ---
This is all about contracts.
A Creative Commons license is a contract. And that is what we are discussing here...not the copying and sharing of commercially produced movies and music. That would be like comparing ice cubes to oranges, when you get into things like creating derivative works, based on a CC-BY licensed work, and selling it commercially. Nobody is arguing that the CC-BY license contract doesn't allow that. What we are talking about is the enforceability issues that the whole thing creates when you can't prove a contract exists.
We are not talking about you getting to see a movie for free.
We are talking about you being able to take a CC-BY licensed work of art, using it to illustrate a series of childrens books that become as popular as Dr Seuss, leading to merchandising based on that artist's artwork, leading to an animated series based on that artwork, which the artist fully allowed you to do with the CC license contract, and then later not being able to prove that contract existed in the first place, or that it allowed commercial use, or the creation of derivative works.
Renegade:
Sorry. When I jumped in here it was from a recommendation in another thread. We're obviously not talking about the same things. So, no need to breed more red herrings.
40hz:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version