We're getting ready to roll out version 2.0 of the Creative Commons licenses. Please let us know what you think.

Versioning -- Public Review Begins

6 Comments

fantastic work.

I thought perhaps you might be interested in our implementation of the Copyright Commons model, it's a little project of ours, hope you approve.

www.mobloguk.com

Alfie.

I wonder if your opinions on dropping the warranty clause from the CC licenses have changed since you made this post.

Our opinions have changed. We got more negative feedback than positive feedback and it didn't incent the companies as much as we had hoped it would. I think that dropping it was the right decision and my original position was mistaken in retrospect.

Interesting! I've only seen the rather specious arguments available on the Web and email ("I don't want to have to think about what I publish on my blog!").

My opinion is that if there's a trade-off of making life easier for rights-sloppy bloggers, versus making CC-licensed work more attractive to publishers, well... too bad, dumb blogger. I clear the rights on my work, and I want CC to mean "worth republishing", not "use at your own peril".

I hadn't heard anything about feedback from "companies" -- I assume this means publishers, music co.s, etc.? -- as to the warranties. Has anyone explicitly said this? Or are you just saying that publishers haven't picked up on CC-licensed work, so we can assume they don't care about the warranty? Am I taking too much out of your comment?

I am on the other side on this issue. Just a few lines in reply:

I have argued about this issue, but my argument was certainly not "I don't want to have to think about what I publish on my blog".

I noted early on: Dropping the warranty in no way removes the liability of the licensor for any copyright infringement.

Basically you can't expect people to give away their content for free and then ask them to pay whatever the economic value of a warranty is on top of that.

If, on the other hand you insist on warranties, you need to educate licensors about the fact. If won't do to say that there is no cost for the licensor, while in fact there is the cost associated with the warranty.

So, I think the "give it away for free" argument is kind of specious, Karl-Friedrich. It implies that the licensor-licensee relationship is a one-way street; that the licensee gets all the benefits, at the licensor's expense.

This is not the case. Licensors get great benefits from free distribution and publication of their work. Licensees put time, effort, and resources into that publication and distribution. They shouldn't be exposed to legal risk -- extremely hard for them to mitigate -- for providing this service.

I'm sure there's some benefit for some licensors to havie some kind of quitclaim agreement, to wit, "I don't know or care about this work; do as you will with it, at your own risk." I just don't think that all the CC licenses should be reduced to a quitclaim. Removing the warranty provision tars all CC-licensed work with the same quitclaim brush.

Standard publication agreements include indemnification clauses; there's no reason not to include them in the CC licenses.

Leave a comment

2 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Version 2.0 of Creative Commons licenses.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://joi.ito.com/MT-4.35-en/mt-tb.cgi/1340

Joi [1] just pointed out the draft of the Creative Commons by-nc-sa license version 2.0 [2]. There will be some changes regarding the warranties, a link-back to the attribution clause and among other points, compatibility questions regarding e.g. the G... Read More

Some comments to the draft of the version 2.0 Creative Commons licenses. Obviously I share with Dan Bricklin Read More

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Business and the Economy category.

Books is the previous category.

Computer and Network Risks is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index.

Monthly Archives