Re: nettime My Lawyer is an Artist

2011-11-21 Thread Aymeric Mansoux
Rob Myers said :

 On 17/11/11 01:24, Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
  I would make a difference between the relation between creator A and
  user B and the relation between user B and C.
 
  Even if creator A would OWE something to user B, he would owe nothing
  to user C.
 
 B owes something to C, though, and B got it from A. A cannot change B's
 ability to give A's work to C. What A owes C depends on how
 Romantically we view A's work. But C will certainly end up with A's work.
 ...

Just to add to what Rob and the others have already said, I think there
is also a confusion between copyright, moral rights and the
effectiveness of the latter within copyleft practices. In theory A can
still stop C to keep on making a particular usage of A's work if there
is a way to demonstrate that this particular usage, even though
fully respecting the terms of the license, is damaging for A's honor and
reputation.

That's the simplified general idea. In practice every juridiction has
its own way to define moral rights and by extension its own cases of
what is considered damaging. To make things worse the very concept of
moral rights does not exist in all juridictions. Overall, whether it is
defined or not, the whole idea is difficult to put in practice, if not
hard to make relevant to a specific context.

In the end, this only concerns very specific situations that will only
change the nature and possibly terminate the license or the contract
between A and C. B's rights will remain unchanged, as well as the ones
from D, E, F, ..., Z because free culture licenses are irrevocable. The
GPLv3 and CC licenses are very explicit in that regard. A good
illustration of the difficulty to deal with moral right issues is by
checking all the mechanisms in CC licenses to make sure A is not wrongly
credited for changes that were not endorsed.

So, as stated previously, once the decision is made, is public and that
the licensed work has been already copied/distributed, there is no
turning back.

a.
--
http://su.kuri.mu


#  distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
#  nettime  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org


Re: nettime My Lawyer is an Artist

2011-11-15 Thread Heiko Recktenwald

Hi

Am 11.11.2011 14:23, schrieb Aymeric Mansoux:

 It is in fact a crucial stage. By doing so, the author allows her or
 his work to interface with a system inside which it can be freely
 exchanged, modified and distributed. The freedom of this work is not
 to be misunderstood with gratis and free of charge access to the
 creation, it means that once such a freedom is granted to a work of
 art, anyone is free to redistribute and modify it according to the
 rules provided by its license. There is no turning back once this
 choice is made public.

This is IMHO pure nonsense. IMHO nothing can stop a pruducer from
changing his mind for the future. Why should it be the way you
imagine? What should be the reason for such a limitation (no turning
back) of his freedom? Can you show me, sorry, ONE case where a court
has decided in your way?


This artist is a lawyer,


very best,


H.


 The licensed work will then have a life of its own, an autonomy
 granted by a specific freedom of use, not defined by its author, but
 by the license she or he chose.



#  distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
#  nettime  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org


Re: nettime My Lawyer is an Artist

2011-11-15 Thread Rob Myers
On 15/11/11 10:15, Heiko Recktenwald wrote:

 IMHO nothing can stop a pruducer from
 changing his mind for the future.

They cannot however prevent the people who have received copies of their
work under a licence offering that work to other people under the same
licence.

So yes the artist can stop offering the work under that licence, but
they'll have a hard time suppressing it.

- Rob.


#  distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
#  nettime  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org