[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model

[Pasi Palmulehto]

> > 20y - At this point the work has got enough protection for making some
> > profit for the creator, or if it hasn't...it probably never will. The
> > work will move into public domain (in Finland PD would still retain some
> > "moral rights", most importantly one close to CC-by, or the right to be
> > recognized as the original creator, which I think is good.)
> >   
> You should not call it public domain. For public domain stuff the "moral
> rights" cannot apply by definition.
> 

This is true, I simply didn't want to take the definition from wind
before I know how is it elsewhere. In Finland PD doesn't override moral
rights as far as I know. I don't actually think it even needs any
special name. It's free to use and moral rights should be written in
every law if they aren't. Free to use with respect to original creator
by telling the original source.
There are five moral rights in Finland but only one good and actually
working one...others are pretty much too old to work anymore.

Right to be known as creator (~CC-by)

Respect right to select where the work is used (complicated old crappy
priviledge, at most could be used for some sculptures or such) and not
to harm image of the creator (not a problem after creator cannot anymore
select where his/her work is used)

Right to access art work - heh...what can I say...non working

Regret right - if circumstances have changed dramatically, right to
cancel selling of the work. This should not need a moral right, this
should be considered basic right.

Classical work right - to prevent shameful use of work when copyrights
have already gone old.

First one is important to me and I think it should never get old, not a
lifetime right but forever.


> I think it's better to give it a different name and explicitly explain
> that it's like public domain with the exception that the moral rights
> are still in place. That does not limit anyone from using the work while
> giving the authors a control against defacement during their lifetime.
> Imho this is a very important thing.
> 
> Working out how the moral rights should look like in practice would be
> smooth down angry authors as well. Fact is that we take away from the
> authors in one way or another. Why not - in exchange - give them
> something back that does not interfer with the idea of free culture.
> 
> Otherwise I'm super happy with your ideas..

Thank you.

I think there could be some more to include in moral rights but just the
first one on my list. But the fact creator cannot choose where his/her
work is used, IMO releases the creator from shame if the work is used on
something he/she cannot tolerate.

-- 
Pasi "Scoffa" Palmulehto
Leader of Finnish Pirate Party