Subject:
|
Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:32:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
[snip]
> > Indeed, I'll go one step further, the CA is totally unenforcable.
> > Unless, LDraw.Org requires that the part copyrights be
> > transferred to LDraw.Org, it is completely illegal for LDraw.Org
> > to change the license to the parts without getting permission
> > from each part owner. Only the copyright holder can change
> > the license.
>
> Two things here are wrong:
>
> 1) copyrights can be transferred.
> they can be assigned or liscenced, but the original copyright holder is always
> the copyright holder.
Your statement is false. In the United States, copyrights are a form of
intellectual property that can be bought and sold like any other
form of property. In the United States, once the copyright has been
transferred, the original author has no rights to the work unless they
new owner grants them rights via a license. In Europe, they have the
concept of authorship rights that they believe the author retains
irrespective of who owns the copyright.
> when people sign away thier copyrights, they are
> typically signing a liscence (many are exclusive). LDraws is a non-exclusive
> liscence, but they still have all rights as the liscence defines. The CA
> defines these rights, including the right to redistribute
>
> 2) only the copyright holder can change a liscence
> not true. depends on what the liscence says. If the liscence gives me the
> right to sell it to someone else, that would be a change. If the liscence
> agrees to a variable royalty rate (Depending on market conditions and adjusted
> for inflation) than that would be a change. If the change and how it is to
> happen are well defined in the agreement, then it is possible.
The Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) is incompatible with
the CA. The CCAL disallows sub-licensing, which is what the CA is attempting
to do. Sorry.
[snip]
-Wayne
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) A great example of this is the Beatles library, which Michael Jackson bought at one point. (...) We have something along those lines in the US, but I think it's restricted solely to the requirement that you give credit where it's due. They (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) No, actually, you are completly wrong. You cannot buy a "copyright." This is something that is created when a piece of intellectual property is created. The only exception to this is a work for hire, which you could think of as buying a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| Note: I am from the U.S., so I am speaking about U.S. copyright law. Note IANAL, but as a graphic designer, copyright is a very important issue to me. The 1995 Artist's and Graphic Designer's Market (Edited by Mary Cox, Cincinnatti: Writer's Digest (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) Two things here are wrong: 1) copyrights can be transferred. they can be assigned or liscenced, but the original copyright holder is always the copyright holder. when people sign away thier copyrights, they are typically signing a liscence (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
