On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:55:15 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to
> > > credit Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a
> > > credit.
> >
> > If it is a credit, it's not an inaccurate or false one, AFAICT.
> > If it is not a credit, the law doesn't forbid me to state a (true)
> > fact.
> >
> > Or am I wrong?
>
> I think such a credit could be inaccurate or false attribution
> in some circumstances.
I cannot see how the credit we're talking about[1] could be inaccurate
or false attribution, but I'm not an English native speaker, so I can be
wrong...
It's anyway difficult for me to imagine how one can be considered guilty
of false attribution for having stated a true fact...
[1] namely, "This image is based on the desk image created by Bob" in
the case of a pornographic image created by including a drawing of a
desk originally drawn by Bob
>
> > > See
> > > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/1998/345.html if you
> > > want more explanation of both legislation and case law.
> >
> > I tried to find the time to read that, but miserably failed.
> > Sorry.
> >
> > A pretty short summary?
>
> Yes, it is. If you have time for nothing else, read paragraphs
> 20, 22 and 48-53 for the summary of that summary.
I read those paragraphs, thanks.
I'm not sure that case is relevant here, though: IIUC, the Defendant was
judged guilty of passing off and false attribution because of some
parodistic articles that had the same format and typographical look as
the Plaintiff's serious articles. The Defendant failed to make clear
enough that those parodies were *not* written by the Plaintiff, thus
causing confusion and misunderstanding in the readers.
On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
Charlie doesn't say "This image is created by Bob" or otherwise tries to
pass it off as a work by Bob.
He clearly states that "This image is *based on* the desk image created
by Bob" (emphasis added).
>
> > > I think it's fair that you can't credit upstream with your
> > > derivative or collective if they don't want you to.
> >
> > I'm not so sure: even if the credit is accurate and corresponds to
> > reality?
>
> The only case obvious to me where upstream could be credited
> accurately with your derivative work is when you are the upstream.
Huh?
Maybe I fail to parse what you wrote: it seems you're saying that
*every* credit for contributors is necessarily inaccurate...
>
> > As a matter of courtesy, I'm of course ready to purge any credit
> > that upstream doesn't like.
> > But is it DFSG-free to *require* me to do so upon request, as a
> > condition for getting all the permissions granted by the license?
>
> I believe so. It's a noop in the law of the licence. If you'd
> like to present arguments that misattribution must be allowed
> for meeting the DFSG, I wish you luck and won't comment further!
Misattribution should *not* be allowed, of course.
What I'm saying is "who decides what is accurate and what is inaccurate
credit?".
You seem to imply that the credited person can arbitrarily decide on
that question.
I instead think the courts have such a power.
> Where do you want to draw that line?
I think that an accurate credit should *not* be forbidden by a DFSG-free
license (even when the credited person doesn't like to be credited).
It's always acceptable to forbid inaccurate credit.
What's accurate and what not? That's up to the courts to decide.
That's how I see it.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp0q83NdAMkq.pgp
Description: PGP signature