Advertisement

Abstract

In this paper we analyse the Creative Commons computerized licensing system. We draw the attention to the fact that despite considerable efforts to make the complicated task of licensing work using so-called free license as simple as possible, the system is apt to give rise to countless ambiguities often leading to copyright infringements. We maintain that the phenomenon has been caused by the modifications of ‘language’ that facilitates the communication of the relevant section of law and consequent loss of vital context and structure in the framework of which the communication has to be perceived. We come to a conclusion that while context and structure preserving modifications should be regarded as the preferable method of simplifying legal language, its scope is too narrow to achieve the goal of making legal language easily understandable for a layperson. Unconstrained simplification is powerful enough to achieve the goal but entails a danger of driving a layperson, as well as a professional, into undesirable outcomes.

Keywords

legal language simplification legal certainty copyright Creative Commons 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hager, J.W.: Let’s Simplify Legal Language. Rocky Mountain Law Review 32, 74–88 (1959)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phillips, A.: Lawyers Language. How and why legal language is different. Routledge, London (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butt, P., Castle, R.: Modern Legal Drafting. A Guide to Using Clearer Language, p. 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatia, V.K., Candlin, C.N., Engberg, J. (eds.): Legal Discourse across Cultures and Systems. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldstein, T., Lieberman, J.K.: The Lawyer s Guide to Writing Well. University of California Press, Los Angeles (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plain English Campaign, http://plainlanguagecampaign.com/
  7. 7.
    Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Bix, B.: Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy, p. 106. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao, D.: Translating Law, p. 9. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhatia, V.K., Candlin, C.N., Engberg, J.: Concepts, Contexts and Procedures in Arbitration Discourse. In: Bhatia, V.K., Candlin, C.N., Engberg, J. (eds.) Legal Discourse across Cultures and Systems, p. 9. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    White, J.B.: The Legal Imagination. p. xiii. University of Chicago Press, London (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Floridi, L.: The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Above 13, p. 318Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Floridi, L.: The Method of Levels of Abstraction. Minds & Machines, p. 319. Springer Science+Business Media (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelly, K.: What Technology Wants, pp. 269–274. Penguin Group, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Above 2, p. 40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Above 11, p. 4Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhatia, V.K.: Simplification v. Easification - The Case of Legal Texts. Applied Linguistics 4, 42–54 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fuller, L.L.: Positivism and Fidelity to Law a Reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review 71, 644 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Above 10, p. 17Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hutton, C.: Language, Meaning and the Law, p. 65. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Above 10, p. 17Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bourdieu, P.: The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, p. 286. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boehme-Nessler, V.: Pictorial Law. Modern Law and the Power of Pictures, p. 52. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Above 28, pp. 10–151Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peirce, C.S.: Logic as Semiotics: The theory of Signs. In: Buchler, J. (ed.) Philosophical Writings of Peirce, p. 102. Dover Publications, Mineola (1955)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Above 10, p. 16Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lessig, L.: The Future of Ideas: the Fate of the Commons in the Connected World, pp. 4–5. Random House, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lessig, L.: Free Culture, pp. xv–xvi. The Penguin Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Free Software Foundation, http://fsf.org
  34. 34.
    Stallman, R., Gay, J.: Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Free Software Foundation, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raymond, E.S.: The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Dulong de Rosnay, M.: Creative Commons Licenses Legal Pitfalls: Incompatibilities and Solutions. Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Angelopoulos, C.J.: Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are the Two Systems Compatible? Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Sullivan, D.: Flickr’s Big Fail On Creative Common’s Attribution Guidelines, http://daggle.com/flickr-fail-on-creative-commons-attribution-691
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
    Koscik, M., Savelka, J.: Dangers of over-enthusiasm in licensing under Creative Commons (unpublished manuscript), For private use only the survey is accessible, http://is.muni.cz/www/134449/Koscik_Savelka-DangersOfCCAnnex.pdf
  43. 43.
    Above 13, p. 326Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matěj Myška
    • 1
  • Terezie Smejkalová
    • 1
  • Jaromír Šavelka
    • 1
  • Martin Škop
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations