The Creative Commons licences through moral rights provisions in French law

Abstract

Since 2002, Creative Commons has been continuously evolving in order to create a licensing scheme that not only fulfils the needs of the author but also stays compatible with already existing national copyright laws. The extent of the respect of moral rights provisions has always been highlighted during the licences’ evolution. This Article first examines whether moral rights are expressly mentioned in the licences and if so, what their treatment is. Each element of the moral rights in the French system will be considered in order to verify their compatibility with the Creative Commons licences. In this context, it will be also asserted whether some existing clauses in the licence contradict with the moral rights of authors. The Article will conclude that although a more flexible interpretation of moral rights provisions is needed when dealing with open content licences, it is essential that Creative Commons addresses the aspects of the licences that are identified as problematic in relation to moral rights. Finally, it will be demonstrated that regardless of the legal status of the licences, the authors' responsibility towards their rights is what will ultimately be the safeguard of their creations' path.

Keywords:

• open content licences
• Creative Commons
• moral rights
• French law

Notes

1. See ‘Our mission’, available at: https://creativecommons.org/about

2. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_do_CC_licences_operate.3F

3. The latest version 4.0 draft of the licences was published on 15 October, 2013. All drafts of version 4.0 of Creative Commons licences are available at the wiki created specifically for the discussion of the drafting of the licences: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts (last accessed 29 October 2013).

4. See article 6bis of the Berne Convention.

5. While Recital 19 of Council Directive 2001/29/EC ‘on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’ excludes moral rights from its scope and makes reference to national laws and the Berne Convention, there are mentions to some attributes of moral rights: see for example article 5(3)(d) referring to the right to be attributed.

6. It is worth noting that, similar to the French perception of moral rights, Greek law defines the moral right of the author as the right to protect the personal connection created between the author and the work.

7. Phil Collins v Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Leif Emanuel Kraul v EMI Electrola GmbH, joined cases C-92/92 and C-326/92, ECR 1993, I-5145.

8. Section 2(b)(1) of all versions 4.0 licences (last accessed 29 October 2013).

9. Policy statement by Creative Commons issued on 16 October, 2013, available at https://creativecommons.org/about/reform. This statement however continues to express the pressing need for copyright reform: ‘CC licenses are not a substitute for users’ rights, and CC supports on going efforts to reform copyright law to strengthen users’ rights and expand the public domain.’

10. Brief of Amici Curiae from Creative Commons et al. on p. 15 after Jacobsen v Katzer 535 F.3d 1373 [2008] (Fed Cir (US))The Amici can be viewed here: <http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/ccc_brf.pdf> (last accessed 25 October 2013).

11. Idem, p. 17

12. See Section 4.b of the Creative Commons licences, for example the ‘Attribution 1.0 Generic’ licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode

13. See Section 4.b of version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licences, for example the ‘Attribution 2.5 Generic’ licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode

14. The amendment is announced and explained by the general counsel at the time, Mia Garlick. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002315.html (accessed 26 July 2013).

15. See Section 4.c of the Creative Commons licences, for example the ‘Attribution 3.0 Unported’ licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

16. See Section 4.d of the French version of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 3.0 France’: ‘si l'Acceptant Reproduit, Distribue ou Représente l’Œuvre en elle-même, ou au sein d'une Adaptation ou d'une Collection, il doit respecter les droits moraux du Titulaire de Droits Originaire’ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/fr/legalcode

17. See Section 4C of the Australian version of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 3.0 Australia’: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode

18. See Section 2.b(1) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International’, stating that ‘moral rights () … are not licensed under this Public License’: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

19. See Section 3.(a)(2) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International’: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

20. See art. 106A of the Copyright Act of the United States: ‘(moral) rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified’ and art. 48 of the British Copyright Act of 1988: ‘(moral rights) may be waived by consent’.

21. See art. 3 of the ‘CC0 1.0 Universal’: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

22. Idem.

23. See Section 2.b(1) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

24. See for example art. 10.3, 10bis.1. See also art. 7.3 and 15.3 of the Berne Convention for anonymous and pseudonymous works.

25. Article 9 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) expressly excludes the moral rights protection of the article 6bis of the Berne Convention from its application.

26. In addition, the more recent WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 requires in Art 5(1) that member States provide protection for the moral rights of performers.

27. Copyright Act 1976 (US), y106A(a).

28. The equivalent clause (2.2) of the Art Libre licence, states that the attribution process requires that the licensee specifies ‘the names of the author(s) of the originals, including yours if you have modified the work’: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en

29. ‘Indicate if You have modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications’ See section 3.(a)(1)(B) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International’: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

30. See Section 3.(a)(1)(A)(i) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

31. In the case of photos, a platform such as Flickr can be a solution to establish contact with the author regardless of the status of the work.

32. ‘If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) if reasonably practicable’ See Section 3.(a)(1)(3) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).

33. See section 3.a and 3.b of the ‘Attribution- Non derivatives 3.0 Unported’ Creative Commons licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/legalcode

34. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_happens_if_I_offer_my_work_under_a_Creative_Commons_license_and_someone_misuses_my_work.3F

35. See Appendix art.II.8 and III.4 d.

36. The most widely read critique of the NC term is ‘The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons-NC License’ available at: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC. See also ‘Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0’, a critique by the Student for Free Culture available at http://freeculture.org/blog/2012/08/27/stop-the-inclusion-of-proprietary-licenses-in-creative-commons-4-0/ (last accessed 29 October 2013).

37. Study conducted by Creative Commons: ‘Defining “Noncommercial” A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”.’ published 14 September 2009, available at: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf

38. See section 4.c of the Creative Commons licences, for example the ‘Attribution- Share alike 3.0’ licence: ‘if You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections … ’: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

39. See Section 3.(a)(B) of the latest draft of the Creative Commons licences, for example ‘Attribution 4.0 International’: http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (last accessed 29 October 2013).