> >> What is the legal distinction you're drawing > >> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating > >> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your > >> legal rights.) > >> > > > > Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights. > > How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"?
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be. > A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that > recognize moral rights. > Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution. > But the > > distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click > > away, in the > > other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing > > in a url, > > and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that. > > So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a > book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot > of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis > for objecting to that form of attribution? Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture". >> But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the > >> article is offline is *not* > >> "direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this > >> distinction? > > > > Common sense? > > So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"? To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal rights can't be understood without employing common sense. > Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument? I'm sure you'll take my comment out of context in any case. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
