On 2/27/07, Lawrence Lessig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This includes rescinding rights to materials which have been > contributed to collective projects. ie The commons has a use-by date > and CC is developing tools to make it easy to terminate transfer. > This concerns me as an organisation identifying itself as promoting > participation and access to a full and reliable commons. > > This is not correct. The termination of transfers provision excepts > derivatives. See "So, I get all my rights back?" at > http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php
"Derivative works" exception - although a successful termination causes all of the rights to revert, this will not affect exploitation of derivative works created during the lifetime of the agreement, even after that agreement has been terminated. Once the agreement has been terminated, the grantee (see the glossary). may continue after termination to utilize "derivative works prepared under authority of the grant before its termination..[consistent with] the term of the grant" (to quote from the US Copyright Act). This means that if, for example, an author granted a company a 50-year exclusive license to create a movie based on the author's novel, that company can continue to use and exploit the movie even after the author successfully terminates the exclusive license. The company may not prepare a new movie based on the novel; it may only continue to use the existing movie that it created when the exclusive license was still current. also I created my work with another person or a group of people; do the termination provisions still work for me? Yes, if you created a work you can still take advantage of the termination of transfer provisions. and I am not the original author or artist; can I still take advantage of the termination of transfer provisions? The answer to this question depends on two things: firstly, whether the author or artist who created the work is still living? and secondly, who signed the original agreement that you are seeking to terminate? My concern is that for example a set of colour profiles is designed. These designs are accepted as a standard. Projects develop to match the profile and develop around the standard. The profile is rescinded by the author or someone that they worked for or someone else who fits the third party bit, and then all the works around that idea are hinging on something which is no longer accessible. To me it is just the kind of situation which groups developing open projects avoid. ie That a group of people interface with an idea, design, project in good faith that it has been licenced freely. Some businesses sometimes try to remove access or reclaim control after their idea has become pivotal or popular and then the projects around that work need to be reworked to avoid that anomaly. This tot provision means that this will occur on a broad scale, not just when one entity or person doesn't understand how to operate consistently in a commons kind of way but across all projects, and can be rewangled by people other than the author themselves as well. > I can see the intent behind the act but feel concerned that this is > precisely the problem with working inside the existing model. > > it may be, but CC is working inside the existing model. To reform it or to promote it though. What does the commons in the name mean in relation to this project? > We're actually not. We're not permitted in some contexts. And (in my view) > it is not helpful in others. CC is trying to build a better system, given > the existing system. But obviously many of us want a better system (and work > to get such in other parts of our lives). OK how does that work? Who is legally able to represent the interests of commons? What needs to be done so that there is a group in a position to promote commons as a fundamental value or useful space where that conflicts with current law? > So this means we should just let them enforce the tenancy they've already > created? or work to reform the model more holistically? What about a pro-commons suggestion such as the rights to material after 35 years could be accessible to all? Not returned to the starting position protecting the rights of the people who signed on behalf of dead authors? > Termination came in the 1976 Act, to replicate the effect of a term renewal > requirement -- long before the DMCA. Thanks. For me in AU the impact of these laws has been loudest since it has been a part of the US free trade agreements I assumed it was a part of the DMCA-ness. > This is a valid concern. It doesn't apply to this particular project. We > want to liberate a bunch of content so authors have a choice to do something > with it TODAY -- namely participate in the open access movement for > scientific works. That enhances the ethic of sharing in those domains, > because now the excuse "yea, well my publisher has all my rights" no longer > is absolute. Or provides opportunities for those who can gain control of materials to relicense them in more restrictive ways in order to generate new revenue from older works. Who really will be using these new found controls, families of dead authors or people who have signed to the agreements. And these people discovering a new opportunity to control something are going to provide it to a commons? To me it feels like a land mine. It is hard to anticipate, and has messy impact on projects which have developed to interoperate with the items. > Its a good project for a creative licensing group which works for authors. > It seems to be a strange fit for a creative commons group. > > CC works for authors who believe that balance works for culture. I don't > agree that we should cede "authors" to groups that believe that balance is > for sissies. Terminating access on an open licence agreement does not feel like balance. It feels like a new and interesting way for agents/family associated with x author to rip the rug out and hold ideas which have been shared hostage for future commercial gain. Many of the features of this kind of law operate only with the single person creator in mind. Access to knowledge is not about sissies. It is about building a community understanding that freedom is entirely dependent on our ability to generate value without requiring fences. Culture has a collaborative function. I went to a workshop where all of the authors were working on projects where they were inviting participation and collaboration but where the licence and control of all of the projects was strictly held by the first person and not by the contributors. The broadcast approach to copyright (single owner controls access for consumers) is unfair/inaccurate in collaborative participative contexts. For people to become authors they need to practice explore adapt collaborate etc. It makes me sad when the rights of authors are only represented as opportunities to control finished works by single authors/publishers. Communities progress when people bounce off each other and are able to move forward as a community, pushing each others ideas further. I feel we dearly need groups which are able to look beyond the Rapunzel model and to help the legal framework catch up to the reality of culture is produced in distributed and collaborative ways. Janet _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
