Georg C. F. Greve writes:
What you can transfer are "exclusive exploitation rights," which economically behave like the anglo-american Copyright, but it does not contain the "personality rights" of the author.
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
Normally, a transferral of "Copyright" would be understood as a transferral of exclusive exploitation rights under continental European law, but all doubts (that seem valid when the case goes to court) will always be interpreted in favor of the original author.
Fuzzy statements work against the FSF in this case.
I'd like to understand why, precisely.
"personality rights" are never mentionned in European contracts (paid jobs, working for a company as a freelance etc.). Nevertheless, it is enforceable. Instead of qualifying such contracts as fuzzy, I think it would be more accurate to qualify them as being implicit instead of explicit. If enforceability of "personality rights" could be questionned for copyright assignments made to the FSF for this reason only, it would mean that the vast majority of European contracts can be questioned under the same logic.
In the United States, Copyright is just a "thing" and can be bought and sold like anything else.
Fuzzy statements tend to work for the FSF in this case.
So it makes a lot of sense to make sure you have an assignment that will work as well as possible under European law.
Once the Fiduciary License Agreement of the FSF Europe is ready, it is possible that the FSF North America will also start using it.
I agree that mentioning "personality rights" would be an better. I still fail to see why not doing so could be hazardous but I think that adding it would be nice, even if it's not legally required.
Of course Europeans are free to choose the FSF North America as their fiduciary just like North Americans are free to choose the FSF Europe.
Right. It follows the same logic as assigning copyright to APRIL, ANSOL, Software Libero etc. It basically relies on the amount of trust people have toward an independant moral person to fight for their rights. Since there are no legal links between FSF and FSF Europe assigning copyright to FSF Europe means that someone trust it to never fall under an evil influence. I'm happy to learn that people already are ready to grant this high level of trust the newborn FSF Europe.
Cheers,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:05:47PM +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
Georg C. F. Greve writes:
What you can transfer are "exclusive exploitation rights," which economically behave like the anglo-american Copyright, but it does not contain the "personality rights" of the author.
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
AFAIK there are some countries (UK? Portugal?) which do not have this in Europe, but most do have it.
Normally, a transferral of "Copyright" would be understood as a transferral of exclusive exploitation rights under continental European law, but all doubts (that seem valid when the case goes to court) will always be interpreted in favor of the original author.
Fuzzy statements work against the FSF in this case.
I'd like to understand why, precisely.
Because it is a possible breaking point when going to court.
"personality rights" are never mentionned in European contracts (paid jobs, working for a company as a freelance etc.). Nevertheless, it is enforceable.
This is a different situation as you do have many single agreements with different circumstances and not one agreement which is employed widely.
I agree that mentioning "personality rights" would be an better. I still fail to see why not doing so could be hazardous but I think that adding it would be nice, even if it's not legally required.
It is dangerous, because courts will probably fill gaps in interpretation. There is quite some chance that the first rules will set examples in the wrong directions which then will be hart to come over.
Of course Europeans are free to choose the FSF North America as their fiduciary just like North Americans are free to choose the FSF Europe.
It basically relies on the amount of trust people have toward an independant moral person to fight for their rights.
Correct. Though there are not many institutions that have a track record of doing so and have access to the legal support of the FSF.
Since there are no legal links between FSF and FSF Europe assigning copyright to FSF Europe means that someone trust it to never fall under an evil influence. I'm happy to learn that people already are ready to grant this high level of trust the newborn FSF Europe.
There is even something better than legal contracts which can only be fully understood by laywers. The FSF only trusts the FSFE if any FSF* with this and officially approves the Free Software Foundation name component in it. So there are strong links between both organisations. The FSF has hinted upon several times that they will not trust smaller organisations or ones which are relatively easy to take over with copyrights. The FSF Europe can legally only support Free Software because of its constitution.
But you know all this already. 8-) Kind a strange way to ask it in public again to get it explained another time instead of explaining it yourself...
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 11:23, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:05:47PM +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
AFAIK there are some countries (UK? Portugal?) which do not have this in Europe, but most do have it.
We do have so called ``Moral Rights'' in our copyright law. However, I'm not so sure how useful they are in Portugal.
Cheers,
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Loic Dachary wrote:
Georg C. F. Greve writes:
What you can transfer are "exclusive exploitation rights," which economically behave like the anglo-american Copyright, but it does not contain the "personality rights" of the author.
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
Yes, but the expression is not same across the european countries. In Belgium, there is also a concept of "droits moraux exclusifs".
Normally, a transferral of "Copyright" would be understood as a transferral of exclusive exploitation rights under continental European law, but all doubts (that seem valid when the case goes to court) will always be interpreted in favor of the original author.
Fuzzy statements work against the FSF in this case.
I'd like to understand why, precisely.
"personality rights" are never mentionned in European contracts (paid jobs, working for a company as a freelance etc.). Nevertheless, it is enforceable. Instead of qualifying such contracts as fuzzy, I think it would be more accurate to qualify them as being implicit instead of explicit. If enforceability of "personality rights" could be questionned for copyright assignments made to the FSF for this reason only, it would mean that the vast majority of European contracts can be questioned under the same logic.
Yes. For example, in Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, there is a law where the "personality rights" is going to the current employer. It's implicit but for the employer. It's quite a bad situation and the EU has made some comments to remove that. If you want, I can send you the law... But ok it's special case (I think the Luxembourg is the only country with that). But it's better to mention the "copyright assignement" in the working contract instead of having a floating clause.
In the United States, Copyright is just a "thing" and can be bought and sold like anything else.
Fuzzy statements tend to work for the FSF in this case.
So it makes a lot of sense to make sure you have an assignment that will work as well as possible under European law.
Once the Fiduciary License Agreement of the FSF Europe is ready, it is possible that the FSF North America will also start using it.
What do you mean by a Fiduciary License Agreement ?
I agree that mentioning "personality rights" would be an better. I still fail to see why not doing so could be hazardous but I think that adding it would be nice, even if it's not legally required.
Of course Europeans are free to choose the FSF North America as their fiduciary just like North Americans are free to choose the FSF Europe.
Right. It follows the same logic as assigning copyright to APRIL, ANSOL, Software Libero etc. It basically relies on the amount of trust people have toward an independant moral person to fight for their rights. Since there are no legal links between FSF and FSF Europe assigning copyright to FSF Europe means that someone trust it to never fall under an evil influence. I'm happy to learn that people already are ready to grant this high level of trust the newborn FSF Europe.
Is there some case with multiple copyright assignement going to multiple association instead of one? (like APRIL and FSF ?) This could be a solution for the evolution of a organization regarding a specific issue. (for example software patents or export control)
Peace,
adulau
Cheers,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:27:16PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
Is there some case with multiple copyright assignement going to multiple association instead of one?
No, because to my knowledge you need to have one entity which which will take care of the legal aspects of your rights. You can have several entities which have the right to sublicence, though.
On Mon, 2002-06-10 at 17:05, Loic Dachary wrote:
Georg C. F. Greve writes:
What you can transfer are "exclusive exploitation rights," which economically behave like the anglo-american Copyright, but it does not contain the "personality rights" of the author.
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
In Italy, we have the "dirritto d'autore" that covers moral rights (diritti morali) and economic exploitation rights (diritto di sfruttamento economico).
Simo.
On Mon, 2002-06-10 at 17:05, Loic Dachary wrote:
Georg C. F. Greve writes:
What you can transfer are "exclusive exploitation rights," which economically behave like the anglo-american Copyright, but it does not contain the "personality rights" of the author.
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
Also in Italy. You cannot give them away. I think is the same for the whole UE, but I'm not sure.
"personality rights" are never mentionned in European contracts (paid jobs, working for a company as a freelance etc.). Nevertheless, it is enforceable. Instead of qualifying such contracts as fuzzy, I think it would be more accurate to qualify them as being implicit instead of explicit. If enforceability of "personality rights" could be questionned for copyright assignments made to the FSF for this reason only, it would mean that the vast majority of European contracts can be questioned under the same logic.
In Italy (at least) you cannot put illegal clause into contracts. So "moral right" are never mentioned because they cannot be transferred. But normally you have the transfer of the "exclusive exploitation rights". Sure you can obatain to be recognized as the author of a program, but just that, no right on the use, etc.
I agree that mentioning "personality rights" would be an better.
Don't know if it's better. In Italy you don't have to do, they are always preserved.
I still fail to see why not doing so could be hazardous but I think
that
adding it would be nice, even if it's not legally required.
This is not clear to me, too.
Of course Europeans are free to choose the FSF North America as their fiduciary just like North Americans are free to choose the FSF Europe.
Right. It follows the same logic as assigning copyright to APRIL, ANSOL, Software Libero etc. It basically relies on the amount
Associazione Software Libero, or AsSoLi, this is the correct name.
of trust people have toward an independant moral person to fight for their rights. Since there are no legal links between FSF and FSF Europe assigning copyright to FSF Europe means that someone trust it to never fall under an evil influence. I'm happy to learn that people already are ready to grant this high level of trust the newborn FSF Europe.
I don't think that AsSoLi has, at least now (and probably also in the future), the capability to enforce such rights; and according to the fact that this kind of legislation will be surely armonized by the EU, I think that it will be more efficient in any case to have a single organization taking care of the problem.
Ciao Simone
On Seg, 2002-06-10 at 16:05, Loic Dachary wrote:
Georg C. F. Greve writes:
What you can transfer are "exclusive exploitation rights," which economically behave like the anglo-american Copyright, but it does not contain the "personality rights" of the author.
That's what we call "droits moraux" (moral rights) in France. Maybe Till can tell us if these "personality rights" are common to all countries in Europe. Are there European countries that have no such concept ? It exists in Germany (my guess), in France and ... ?
AFAIK Germany, France, Italy and Portugal have moral rights, even if these differ from country to country. For instance, in Portugal, it's a moral right to withdraw from use or distribution a work for "grave moral reasons" as long as the interested parties are indemnified.