Diversity in creative licenses

Andres Guadamuz comments on the BBC/C4/bfi/OU Creative License and points out the key differences between it and the Creative Commons Licensing 'platform'. Namely

• the CAL is "very territorial"

  2.1 The Licensor hereby grants to You a Non-Commercial, No-Endorsement, payment-free, non-exclusive licence within the United Kingdom for the duration of copyright in the Work to copy and/or Share the Work and/or create, copy and/or Share Derivative Works on any platform in any media.

• and "there is no endorsement or derogatory treatment"

  2.2.5. do not use the Work (which includes any underlying contributions to the work) and/or any Derivative Work for any illegal, derogatory or otherwise offensive purpose or through the use of the Work or any Derivative Work bring the Licensor's (or underlying rights owners') reputation into disrepute;

The CC licenses do not seek to protect creator's 'moral rights' (i.e. the right to be identified as the author of a work, the right to object to derogatory treatment - as opposed to economic rights). The CAL is able to deal with this more effectively than CC could by virtue of being limited to the three UK jurisdictions. Andres concludes that the diversification of licenses is a good thing, different licenses suit different purposes, and notes, "Trying to get everyone in the creative industries to choose the same licence is like herding cats."

Posted by Paul in Intellectual Property Law at April 15, 2005 10:11 PM | 0 Comments