Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

CC Ports by Jurisdiction

2012-12-13T18:59:14Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{| style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="10"
|-
! style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | Jurisdiction || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | Current License Version || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | Previous License Versions || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"| 3.0 Public Discussion || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | 3.0 Launch Date
|-
| Argentina || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Australia || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.1, 2.0 || 18 June 2008 || 8 June 2010
|-
| Austria || 3.0 || 2.0 || 22 Feb 2008 || 14 Aug 2008
|-
| Belgium|| 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Brazil || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || 7 Aug 2003 || 29 Jan 2010
|-
| Bulgaria || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Canada || 2.5 || 2.0 || ||
|-
| Chile || 3.0 || 2.0 || 27 May 2008 || 22 Aug 2010
|-
| China || 3.0 || 2.5 || || 30 Aug 2012
|-
| Colombia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Costa Rica || 3.0 || none || 28 July 2010 || 12 Jan 2011
|-
| Croatia || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || || 19 March 2008
|-
| Czech Republic || 3.0 || none || 9 Jan 2009 || 16 Apr 2009
|-
| Denmark || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Ecuador || 3.0 || none || 21 Feb 2008 || 22 Apr 2008
|-
| Egypt || || none || 1 Feb 2010 || ||
|-
| England and Wales || 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Estonia || 3.0 || none || 1 Jun 2010 || 6 Jan 2011
|-
| Finland || 1.0 || none || ||
|-
| France || 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Germany || 3.0 || 2.0 || 28 Feb 2008 || 24 July 2008
|-
| Greece || 3.0 || none || 7 Mar 2007 || 13 Oct 2007
|-
| Guatemala || 3.0 || none || 2 May 2008 || 23 Oct 2008
|-
| Hong Kong || 3.0 || none || 3 Jan 2008 || 25 Oct2008
|-
| Hungary || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| India || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Ireland || 3.0 || none || 2 Mar 2011 || 27 Feb 2012
|-
| Israel || 2.5 || 1.0 || ||
|-
| Italy || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || || 10 June 2011
|-
| Japan || 2.1 || none || ||
|-
| Luxembourg || 3.0 || none || || 15 Oct 2007
|-
| Macedonia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Malaysia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Malta || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Mexico || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Netherlands || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0, 1.0 || || 31 July 2007
|-
| New Zealand || 3.0 || none || || 27 Oct 2007
|-
| Norway || 3.0 || none || 21 Feb 2008 || 6 Jun 2008
|-
| Peru || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Philippines || 3.0 || none || Aug 2010 || 15 Dec 2007
|-
| Poland || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || 5 Dec 2007 || 23 Jul 2009
|-
| Portugal|| 3.0 || 2.5 || 23 Nov 2010 || 14 Oct 2011
|-
| Puerto Rico || 3.0 || none || Jul 2007 || 22 Feb 2008
|-
| Romania || 3.0 || none || 29 Jan 2008 || 2 Sept 2008
|-
| Scotland || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Serbia || 3.0 || none || 14 Nov 2007 || 15 Dec 2007
|-
| Singapore || 3.0 || none || 23 Jun 2008 || 25 Jul 2008
|-
| Slovenia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| South Africa || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| South Korea || 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Spain || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.1, 2.0 || 24 Feb 2007 || 17 Nov 2008
|-
| Sweden || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Switzerland || 3.0 || 2.5 || none || 16 April 2012 ||
|-
| Taiwan || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || || 31 Oct 2009
|-
| Thailand || 3.0 || none || 26 Nov 2007 || 2 Apr 2009
|-
| Uganda || 3.0 || none || 4 Jan 2012 || ||
|-
| United States || 3.0 || none || || 23 Feb 2007
|-
|Venezuela || || none || 2 Feb 2012 || 28 Nov 2012 ||
|-
| Vietnam || 3.0 || none || 9 Jul 2009 || 7 May 2010
|-
|}

CC Ports by Jurisdiction

2012-12-13T18:58:19Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{| style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="10"
|-
! style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | Jurisdiction || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | Current License Version || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | Previous License Versions || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"| 3.0 Public Discussion || style="background-color:#CCCCCC;" | 3.0 Launch Date
|-
| Argentina || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Australia || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.1, 2.0 || 18 June 2008 || 8 June 2010
|-
| Austria || 3.0 || 2.0 || 22 Feb 2008 || 14 Aug 2008
|-
| Belgium|| 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Brazil || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || 7 Aug 2003 || 29 Jan 2010
|-
| Bulgaria || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Canada || 2.5 || 2.0 || ||
|-
| Chile || 3.0 || 2.0 || 27 May 2008 || 22 Aug 2010
|-
| China || 3.0 || 2.5 || || 30 Aug 2012
|-
| Colombia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Costa Rica || 3.0 || none || 28 July 2010 || 12 Jan 2011
|-
| Croatia || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || || 19 March 2008
|-
| Czech Republic || 3.0 || none || 9 Jan 2009 || 16 Apr 2009
|-
| Denmark || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Ecuador || 3.0 || none || 21 Feb 2008 || 22 Apr 2008
|-
| Egypt || || none || 1 Feb 2010 || ||
|-
| England and Wales || 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Estonia || 3.0 || none || 1 Jun 2010 || 6 Jan 2011
|-
| Finland || 1.0 || none || ||
|-
| France || 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Germany || 3.0 || 2.0 || 28 Feb 2008 || 24 July 2008
|-
| Greece || 3.0 || none || 7 Mar 2007 || 13 Oct 2007
|-
| Guatemala || 3.0 || none || 2 May 2008 || 23 Oct 2008
|-
| Hong Kong || 3.0 || none || 3 Jan 2008 || 25 Oct2008
|-
| Hungary || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| India || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Ireland || 3.0 || none || 2 Mar 2011 || 27 Feb 2012
|-
| Israel || 2.5 || 1.0 || ||
|-
| Italy || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || || 10 June 2011
|-
| Japan || 2.1 || none || ||
|-
| Luxembourg || 3.0 || none || || 15 Oct 2007
|-
| Macedonia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Malaysia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Malta || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Mexico || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Netherlands || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0, 1.0 || || 31 July 2007
|-
| New Zealand || 3.0 || none || || 27 Oct 2007
|-
| Norway || 3.0 || none || 21 Feb 2008 || 6 Jun 2008
|-
| Peru || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Philippines || 3.0 || none || Aug 2010 || 15 Dec 2007
|-
| Poland || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || 5 Dec 2007 || 23 Jul 2009
|-
| Portugal|| 3.0 || 2.5 || 23 Nov 2010 || 14 Oct 2011
|-
| Puerto Rico || 3.0 || none || Jul 2007 || 22 Feb 2008
|-
| Romania || 3.0 || none || 29 Jan 2008 || 2 Sept 2008
|-
| Scotland || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Serbia || 3.0 || none || 14 Nov 2007 || 15 Dec 2007
|-
| Singapore || 3.0 || none || 23 Jun 2008 || 25 Jul 2008
|-
| Slovenia || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| South Africa || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| South Korea || 2.0 || none || ||
|-
| Spain || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.1, 2.0 || 24 Feb 2007 || 17 Nov 2008
|-
| Sweden || 2.5 || none || ||
|-
| Switzerland || 3.0 || 2.5 || none || 16 April 2012 ||
|-
| Taiwan || 3.0 || 2.5, 2.0 || || 31 Oct 2009
|-
| Thailand || 3.0 || none || 26 Nov 2007 || 2 Apr 2009
|-
| Uganda || ||3.0 || 4 Jan 2012 || ||
|-
| United States || 3.0 || none || || 23 Feb 2007
|-
|Venezuela || || none || 2 Feb 2012 || 28 Nov 2012 ||
|-
| Vietnam || 3.0 || none || 9 Jul 2009 || 7 May 2010
|-
|}

CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy

2012-12-10T19:29:02Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Public Comment Period */

[[MOU and Policies Summary| Return to Summary page]]

Creative Commons has established the following Official CC0 Translation Process and Policy (“CC0 Policy”) to facilitate adoption and understanding of CC0 as a universal tool for dedicating works to the worldwide public domain. This CC0 Policy is established as of December 10, 2012, and may be updated and revised by Creative Commons in its discretion. Any non trivial revisions will be logged and dated at the bottom of this page.

==Plain English Summary==
* The CC0 translation process consists of 5 steps:
# Preparing a draft translation of the CC0 legal code
# Public comment period
# Preparing the final, official translation
# Translating supplemental materials
# Launching the official translation and updating the CC0 Chooser
*Affiliates are the preferred translation team leaders, although other interested community members may propose a translation project or participate as a team member. Third parties may be hired to translate but must be paid for and supervised by the affiliates.
*Translation teams coordinate with and encourage participation by other jurisdictions where the target translation language is used.
*Proposals for leading a translation project should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Coordinator and contain:
** Language for translation
** Other active CC jurisdictions that use the same language
** Plan for coordinating with those other jurisdictions
** Proposed timeline
*Official translations may be selected through the CC0 Chooser in lieu of the English original; however, in the event of a dispute over the meaning of a translated term or phrase, the English controls.

==Overview==
CC0 is designed for use worldwide, without any need for adapting the legal code to local laws. For CC0 to reach its fullest potential, CC encourages linguistic translations of the legal code and deed into as many languages as possible. This wiki page describes the policies and processes for preparing and publishing official translations of the CC0 legal code.

CC0 translation projects are coordinated and overseen by CC’s legal team in collaboration with the global network team.

Creative Commons reserves the exclusive right to approve and host official translations of CC0, as well as to modify this process and adjust translation projects at any time. Each official translation is hosted at a specified uniform resource indicator on CC’s website, consistent with the protocol used for our licenses and other legal tools.

Affirmers (those who are choosing to dedicate works to the worldwide public domain using CC0) have the option to select the original English legal code or an official translation through the [http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ CC0 Chooser]. The original English legal text controls, however, in the event of a dispute about the meaning of an official translation.[1] The CC0 Chooser, official translations and deeds all contain prominent statements and notices to this effect.

==The Translation Process – New Teams==
The process for developing new CC0 translations (each is called a “translation project”) is described below. For translation projects already in progress as of the effective date of this CC0 Policy, please refer to the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_Official_Translation_Process_and_Policy#Translations_in_Progress_.28as_of_policy_effective_date.29 guidelines below].
Creative Commons prefers that each translation project be led by active affiliates under a current MOU with Creative Commons. For this reason, the process described below anticipates new translation project proposals to come from affiliates. However, interested community members are also welcome to propose a translation project or participate as part of a translation team.

==Language; Translation Project Proposals and Selection==
Creative Commons accepts proposals from affiliates to coordinate the linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code, deed and related information materials into the jurisdiction’s official language(s), or other language(s) in which the team members are proficient. Languages transcend national boundaries, and CC acknowledges that several affiliate teams around the world share an official or primary language. CC’s policy is to publish a single, official translation for any given language unless an important reason exists to allow more that one. This mirrors CC’s policy for translations of deeds. Affiliate teams wanting to coordinate translation projects are expected to accommodate and encourage participation of affiliate teams from those other jurisdictions.

Proposals to coordinate a translation project should be directed to the affiliate team’s Regional Coordinator(s). Proposals should (i) identify the language(s) into which the affiliate is offering to coordinate, (ii) identify other current CC affiliate jurisdictions where the language(s) are officially or primarily used, (iii) summarize plans for coordinating with and encouraging the participation of other affiliate teams as well as the broader communities within jurisdictions having the same official or primary language, and (iv) propose a timeline for completing the translation project. Proposals may be posted by CC for comment or to encourage participation by those in jurisdictions sharing an official or primary language.

Regional Coordinators evaluate proposals in consultation with the CC legal team. Translation project plans, translation leads and other team members are then formalized and officially announced through posting on the CC website or on appropriate email lists.

Translation teams offering to arrange for a third party to conduct the translation are responsible for all costs associated with the translation, supervising the translation process and, prior to posting the draft for public comment (below), conducting a final review.

If CC is unable to locate a current affiliate team willing to coordinate a translation project for a particular language where demonstrated demand for an official translation exists, CC may open the process to the public or arrange for third parties to undertake the translation responsibilities in this CC0 Policy.
The person(s) responsible for drafting, or overseeing the drafting, of a translation of the CC0 legal code are referred to as “translation lead(s),” and those participating on the translation project, the “translation team.”

==Preparing the First Translation Draft==
Once finalized, the translation leads coordinate the work of the translation team in linguistically translating the CC0 legal code from English into the identified language. All translations must include an equivalent of the following, the final text of which is determined by CC: “This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”
When finalized, including any review and edits by the translation leads if the drafting involved a third party, the translation leads send the first draft to their Regional Coordinator, who will provide it to the CC legal team. At the same time, the translation leads should deliver a written summary (in English) containing a description of any translation challenges they experienced.
The CC legal team reviews the translation of the legal code and the written explanation, all in collaboration with the translation leads and the Regional Coordinators. This may involve modifications to the draft and a request for additional information, and continues until CC provisionally approves the draft as ready for public comment.

==Public Comment Period==
The public comment period is designed to ensure the highest quality linguistic translations possible. Drafts are posted to the CC wiki at [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation Legal Tools Translation] for public comment and feedback for a reasonable period of time, typically about 30-45 days. The posting and public comment period is coordinated with the translation leads.

==Preparing the Official Translation==
At the conclusion of the public comment period, and following resolution of comments by the CC legal team and the translation leads, the translation leads coordinate preparation and submission of the final official translation to CC in the format requested by CC (currently XHTML). The official translation is posted by CC on the Creative Commons website.

All official translations include an equivalent of the following, the final placement and text of which is determined by CC:
“This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”

==Translating Informational Materials ==
The translation leads are responsible for coordinating the translation of CC0-related information material. The materials to be translated will be coordinated with Creative commons, but typically will include the CC0 deed (if not already translated), and may include the CC0 FAQs and other website materials relating to CC’s public domain tools (including CC0).

==Translations in Progress (as of policy effective date)==
CC is aware that several affiliate teams are preparing or have concluded a linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code. Those affiliate teams wanting to have the translations approved as official under this CC0 Policy should notify their Regional Coordinators and provide the following information:
# Language of translation;
# Persons involved in the translation;
# Description of the translation process undertaken; and
# Description of any public comment process and involvement (or request for involvement) of other affiliate teams from jurisdictions with the same official or primary language.

The CC legal team will review the information with the Regional Coordinators and the requesting affiliate team, and will make a determination as to appropriate next steps consistent with the processes and principles described above.

[1] English is the original language in which CC0’s terms were drafted and vetted for robustness and broad use by both CC’s legal affiliates and the community. Translations by their nature inevitably introduce differences in meaning, even if unintended and nuanced. For these reasons and others, a controlling version (English) in the event of a dispute between the affirmer and someone relying on CC0 makes good legal and practical sense.

CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy

2012-12-10T19:17:03Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Language; Translation Project Proposals and Selection */

[[MOU and Policies Summary| Return to Summary page]]

Creative Commons has established the following Official CC0 Translation Process and Policy (“CC0 Policy”) to facilitate adoption and understanding of CC0 as a universal tool for dedicating works to the worldwide public domain. This CC0 Policy is established as of December 10, 2012, and may be updated and revised by Creative Commons in its discretion. Any non trivial revisions will be logged and dated at the bottom of this page.

==Plain English Summary==
* The CC0 translation process consists of 5 steps:
# Preparing a draft translation of the CC0 legal code
# Public comment period
# Preparing the final, official translation
# Translating supplemental materials
# Launching the official translation and updating the CC0 Chooser
*Affiliates are the preferred translation team leaders, although other interested community members may propose a translation project or participate as a team member. Third parties may be hired to translate but must be paid for and supervised by the affiliates.
*Translation teams coordinate with and encourage participation by other jurisdictions where the target translation language is used.
*Proposals for leading a translation project should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Coordinator and contain:
** Language for translation
** Other active CC jurisdictions that use the same language
** Plan for coordinating with those other jurisdictions
** Proposed timeline
*Official translations may be selected through the CC0 Chooser in lieu of the English original; however, in the event of a dispute over the meaning of a translated term or phrase, the English controls.

==Overview==
CC0 is designed for use worldwide, without any need for adapting the legal code to local laws. For CC0 to reach its fullest potential, CC encourages linguistic translations of the legal code and deed into as many languages as possible. This wiki page describes the policies and processes for preparing and publishing official translations of the CC0 legal code.

CC0 translation projects are coordinated and overseen by CC’s legal team in collaboration with the global network team.

Creative Commons reserves the exclusive right to approve and host official translations of CC0, as well as to modify this process and adjust translation projects at any time. Each official translation is hosted at a specified uniform resource indicator on CC’s website, consistent with the protocol used for our licenses and other legal tools.

Affirmers (those who are choosing to dedicate works to the worldwide public domain using CC0) have the option to select the original English legal code or an official translation through the [http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ CC0 Chooser]. The original English legal text controls, however, in the event of a dispute about the meaning of an official translation.[1] The CC0 Chooser, official translations and deeds all contain prominent statements and notices to this effect.

==The Translation Process – New Teams==
The process for developing new CC0 translations (each is called a “translation project”) is described below. For translation projects already in progress as of the effective date of this CC0 Policy, please refer to the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_Official_Translation_Process_and_Policy#Translations_in_Progress_.28as_of_policy_effective_date.29 guidelines below].
Creative Commons prefers that each translation project be led by active affiliates under a current MOU with Creative Commons. For this reason, the process described below anticipates new translation project proposals to come from affiliates. However, interested community members are also welcome to propose a translation project or participate as part of a translation team.

==Language; Translation Project Proposals and Selection==
Creative Commons accepts proposals from affiliates to coordinate the linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code, deed and related information materials into the jurisdiction’s official language(s), or other language(s) in which the team members are proficient. Languages transcend national boundaries, and CC acknowledges that several affiliate teams around the world share an official or primary language. CC’s policy is to publish a single, official translation for any given language unless an important reason exists to allow more that one. This mirrors CC’s policy for translations of deeds. Affiliate teams wanting to coordinate translation projects are expected to accommodate and encourage participation of affiliate teams from those other jurisdictions.

Proposals to coordinate a translation project should be directed to the affiliate team’s Regional Coordinator(s). Proposals should (i) identify the language(s) into which the affiliate is offering to coordinate, (ii) identify other current CC affiliate jurisdictions where the language(s) are officially or primarily used, (iii) summarize plans for coordinating with and encouraging the participation of other affiliate teams as well as the broader communities within jurisdictions having the same official or primary language, and (iv) propose a timeline for completing the translation project. Proposals may be posted by CC for comment or to encourage participation by those in jurisdictions sharing an official or primary language.

Regional Coordinators evaluate proposals in consultation with the CC legal team. Translation project plans, translation leads and other team members are then formalized and officially announced through posting on the CC website or on appropriate email lists.

Translation teams offering to arrange for a third party to conduct the translation are responsible for all costs associated with the translation, supervising the translation process and, prior to posting the draft for public comment (below), conducting a final review.

If CC is unable to locate a current affiliate team willing to coordinate a translation project for a particular language where demonstrated demand for an official translation exists, CC may open the process to the public or arrange for third parties to undertake the translation responsibilities in this CC0 Policy.
The person(s) responsible for drafting, or overseeing the drafting, of a translation of the CC0 legal code are referred to as “translation lead(s),” and those participating on the translation project, the “translation team.”

==Preparing the First Translation Draft==
Once finalized, the translation leads coordinate the work of the translation team in linguistically translating the CC0 legal code from English into the identified language. All translations must include an equivalent of the following, the final text of which is determined by CC: “This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”
When finalized, including any review and edits by the translation leads if the drafting involved a third party, the translation leads send the first draft to their Regional Coordinator, who will provide it to the CC legal team. At the same time, the translation leads should deliver a written summary (in English) containing a description of any translation challenges they experienced.
The CC legal team reviews the translation of the legal code and the written explanation, all in collaboration with the translation leads and the Regional Coordinators. This may involve modifications to the draft and a request for additional information, and continues until CC provisionally approves the draft as ready for public comment.

==Public Comment Period==
The public comment period is designed to ensure the highest quality linguistic translations possible. Drafts are posted to the CC wiki at [link to translation landing page] for public comment and feedback for a reasonable period of time, typically about 30-45 days. The posting and public comment period is coordinated with the translation leads.

==Preparing the Official Translation==
At the conclusion of the public comment period, and following resolution of comments by the CC legal team and the translation leads, the translation leads coordinate preparation and submission of the final official translation to CC in the format requested by CC (currently XHTML). The official translation is posted by CC on the Creative Commons website.

All official translations include an equivalent of the following, the final placement and text of which is determined by CC:
“This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”

==Translating Informational Materials ==
The translation leads are responsible for coordinating the translation of CC0-related information material. The materials to be translated will be coordinated with Creative commons, but typically will include the CC0 deed (if not already translated), and may include the CC0 FAQs and other website materials relating to CC’s public domain tools (including CC0).

==Translations in Progress (as of policy effective date)==
CC is aware that several affiliate teams are preparing or have concluded a linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code. Those affiliate teams wanting to have the translations approved as official under this CC0 Policy should notify their Regional Coordinators and provide the following information:
# Language of translation;
# Persons involved in the translation;
# Description of the translation process undertaken; and
# Description of any public comment process and involvement (or request for involvement) of other affiliate teams from jurisdictions with the same official or primary language.

The CC legal team will review the information with the Regional Coordinators and the requesting affiliate team, and will make a determination as to appropriate next steps consistent with the processes and principles described above.

[1] English is the original language in which CC0’s terms were drafted and vetted for robustness and broad use by both CC’s legal affiliates and the community. Translations by their nature inevitably introduce differences in meaning, even if unintended and nuanced. For these reasons and others, a controlling version (English) in the event of a dispute between the affirmer and someone relying on CC0 makes good legal and practical sense.

CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy

2012-12-10T18:58:25Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* The Translation Process – New Teams */

[[MOU and Policies Summary| Return to Summary page]]

Creative Commons has established the following Official CC0 Translation Process and Policy (“CC0 Policy”) to facilitate adoption and understanding of CC0 as a universal tool for dedicating works to the worldwide public domain. This CC0 Policy is established as of December 10, 2012, and may be updated and revised by Creative Commons in its discretion. Any non trivial revisions will be logged and dated at the bottom of this page.

==Plain English Summary==
* The CC0 translation process consists of 5 steps:
# Preparing a draft translation of the CC0 legal code
# Public comment period
# Preparing the final, official translation
# Translating supplemental materials
# Launching the official translation and updating the CC0 Chooser
*Affiliates are the preferred translation team leaders, although other interested community members may propose a translation project or participate as a team member. Third parties may be hired to translate but must be paid for and supervised by the affiliates.
*Translation teams coordinate with and encourage participation by other jurisdictions where the target translation language is used.
*Proposals for leading a translation project should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Coordinator and contain:
** Language for translation
** Other active CC jurisdictions that use the same language
** Plan for coordinating with those other jurisdictions
** Proposed timeline
*Official translations may be selected through the CC0 Chooser in lieu of the English original; however, in the event of a dispute over the meaning of a translated term or phrase, the English controls.

==Overview==
CC0 is designed for use worldwide, without any need for adapting the legal code to local laws. For CC0 to reach its fullest potential, CC encourages linguistic translations of the legal code and deed into as many languages as possible. This wiki page describes the policies and processes for preparing and publishing official translations of the CC0 legal code.

CC0 translation projects are coordinated and overseen by CC’s legal team in collaboration with the global network team.

Creative Commons reserves the exclusive right to approve and host official translations of CC0, as well as to modify this process and adjust translation projects at any time. Each official translation is hosted at a specified uniform resource indicator on CC’s website, consistent with the protocol used for our licenses and other legal tools.

Affirmers (those who are choosing to dedicate works to the worldwide public domain using CC0) have the option to select the original English legal code or an official translation through the [http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ CC0 Chooser]. The original English legal text controls, however, in the event of a dispute about the meaning of an official translation.[1] The CC0 Chooser, official translations and deeds all contain prominent statements and notices to this effect.

==The Translation Process – New Teams==
The process for developing new CC0 translations (each is called a “translation project”) is described below. For translation projects already in progress as of the effective date of this CC0 Policy, please refer to the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_Official_Translation_Process_and_Policy#Translations_in_Progress_.28as_of_policy_effective_date.29 guidelines below].
Creative Commons prefers that each translation project be led by active affiliates under a current MOU with Creative Commons. For this reason, the process described below anticipates new translation project proposals to come from affiliates. However, interested community members are also welcome to propose a translation project or participate as part of a translation team.

==Language; Translation Project Proposals and Selection==
Creative Commons accepts proposals from affiliates to coordinate the linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code, deed and related information materials into the jurisdiction’s official language(s), or other language(s) in which the team members are proficient. Languages transcend national boundaries, and CC acknowledges that several affiliate teams around the world share an official or primary language. CC’s policy is to publish a single, official translation for any given language unless an important reason exists to allow more that one. This mirrors CC’s policy for translations of deeds. Affiliate teams wanting to coordinate translation projects are expected to accommodate and encourage participation of affiliate teams from those other jurisdictions.

Proposals to coordinate an translation project should be directed to the affiliate team’s Regional Coordinator(s). Proposals should (i) identify the language(s) into which the affiliate is offering to coordinate, (ii) identify other current CC affiliate jurisdictions where the language(s) are officially or primarily used, (iii) summarize plans for coordinating with and encouraging the participation of other affiliate teams as well as the broader communities within jurisdictions having the same official or primary language, and (iv) propose a timeline for completing the translation project. Proposals may be posted by CC for comment or to encourage participation by those in jurisdictions sharing an official or primary language.

Regional Coordinators evaluate proposals in consultation with the CC legal team. Translation project plans, translation leads and other team members are then formalized and officially announced through posting on the CC website or on appropriate email lists.

Translation teams offering to arrange for a third party to conduct the translation are responsible for all costs associated with the translation, supervising the translation process and, prior to posting the draft for public comment (below), conducting a final review.

If CC is unable to locate a current affiliate team willing to coordinate a translation project for a particular language where demonstrated demand for an official translation exists, CC may open the process to the public or arrange for third parties to undertake the translation responsibilities in this CC0 Policy.
The person(s) responsible for drafting, or overseeing the drafting, of a translation of the CC0 legal code are referred to as “translation lead(s),” and those participating on the translation project, the “translation team.”

==Preparing the First Translation Draft==
Once finalized, the translation leads coordinate the work of the translation team in linguistically translating the CC0 legal code from English into the identified language. All translations must include an equivalent of the following, the final text of which is determined by CC: “This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”
When finalized, including any review and edits by the translation leads if the drafting involved a third party, the translation leads send the first draft to their Regional Coordinator, who will provide it to the CC legal team. At the same time, the translation leads should deliver a written summary (in English) containing a description of any translation challenges they experienced.
The CC legal team reviews the translation of the legal code and the written explanation, all in collaboration with the translation leads and the Regional Coordinators. This may involve modifications to the draft and a request for additional information, and continues until CC provisionally approves the draft as ready for public comment.

==Public Comment Period==
The public comment period is designed to ensure the highest quality linguistic translations possible. Drafts are posted to the CC wiki at [link to translation landing page] for public comment and feedback for a reasonable period of time, typically about 30-45 days. The posting and public comment period is coordinated with the translation leads.

==Preparing the Official Translation==
At the conclusion of the public comment period, and following resolution of comments by the CC legal team and the translation leads, the translation leads coordinate preparation and submission of the final official translation to CC in the format requested by CC (currently XHTML). The official translation is posted by CC on the Creative Commons website.

All official translations include an equivalent of the following, the final placement and text of which is determined by CC:
“This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”

==Translating Informational Materials ==
The translation leads are responsible for coordinating the translation of CC0-related information material. The materials to be translated will be coordinated with Creative commons, but typically will include the CC0 deed (if not already translated), and may include the CC0 FAQs and other website materials relating to CC’s public domain tools (including CC0).

==Translations in Progress (as of policy effective date)==
CC is aware that several affiliate teams are preparing or have concluded a linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code. Those affiliate teams wanting to have the translations approved as official under this CC0 Policy should notify their Regional Coordinators and provide the following information:
# Language of translation;
# Persons involved in the translation;
# Description of the translation process undertaken; and
# Description of any public comment process and involvement (or request for involvement) of other affiliate teams from jurisdictions with the same official or primary language.

The CC legal team will review the information with the Regional Coordinators and the requesting affiliate team, and will make a determination as to appropriate next steps consistent with the processes and principles described above.

[1] English is the original language in which CC0’s terms were drafted and vetted for robustness and broad use by both CC’s legal affiliates and the community. Translations by their nature inevitably introduce differences in meaning, even if unintended and nuanced. For these reasons and others, a controlling version (English) in the event of a dispute between the affirmer and someone relying on CC0 makes good legal and practical sense.

Legal Tools Translation

2012-12-03T21:06:26Z

Aurelia Schultz:

=Welcome to the CC Translation Project!=
''Please note this is an evolving project and we welcome feedback.''

This is the main portal for projects translating the suite of six CC licenses and the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.

If a CC license deed is not yet available in your language, we recommend translating that first. For information on translating CC license deeds, visit [[Translating_CC_Deeds|Translating CC Deeds]].

If you are interested in translating CC0, please see [[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]].

==Translations Generally==
Creative Commons supports two types of linguistic translations of its licenses and CC0: official and unofficial. For version 3.0 of the licenses, CC supports unofficial translations only. These are not suitable for adoption but are provided for information purposes only. Beginning with version 4.0, CC will support official linguistic translations of its six (6) core licenses. The translations process and policy for the 4.0 licenses will be published around the time those licenses are finalized for launch, expected early 2013. '''Please note that translations (whether official or unofficial) involve linguistic translation only -- they do not adapt the licenses or CC0 to account for local law.'''

As of December 2012, CC supports official translations of CC0 version 1.0. Please see the [[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]] for more information on how to start a project to translate CC0 officially into your local language. All CC0 translation projects must be approved by Creative Commons in advance. Those projects for which approval has been given are listed below with links to the relevant project page. CC's policy is to support a single official translation into any particular language, absent a compelling reason otherwise. Please do not start a CC0 translation project without first contacting Creative Commons.

==CC0 Translations==

===Approved CC0 Translation Projects===
''[To come]''

===Unofficial CC0 Translation Projects===
* [sq] [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Publicdomain/zero/1.0/LegalText_%28Albanian%29 Albanian]
* [id] [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Publicdomain/zero/1.0/LegalText_%28Indonesian%29 Indonesian]
* [it] [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Publicdomain/zero/1.0/LegalText_%28Italian%29 Italian]
* [fr] [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Publicdomain/zero/1.0/LegalText_%28French%29 French]
* [ru] [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Publicdomain/zero/1.0/LegalText_%28Russian%29 Russian]

==License Translations==
===Version 3.0 License Translation Projects===
=====Unofficial (only)=====
* [sq] [[AlbanianLegalTools|Albanian]]
* [id] [[IndonesianLegalTools|Indonesian]]
* [ru] [[RussianLegalTools|Russian]] CC-BY only
* [uk] [[UkrainianLegalTools|Ukrainian]] CC-BY only

===Version 4.0 License Translation Projects===
=====Official (only)=====
''[To come]''

==All Translation Projects==
'''If you do not see your language here, please contact CC HQ at affiliate-program@creativecommons.org before starting. Thank you.'''
* [ar] [[ArabicLegalTools|Arabic]]
* [sq] [[AlbanianLegalTools|Albanian]]
* [zy] [[ChineseLegalTools|Chinese]]
* [id] [[IndonesianLegalTools|Indonesian]]
* [it] [[ItalianLegalTools|Italian]]
* [fr] [[FrenchLegalTools|French]]
* [ms] [[MalayLegalTools|Malay]]
* [ru] [[RussianLegalTools|Russian]]
* [uk] [[UkrainianLegalTools|Ukrainian]]

'''Note:''' Translations are to help people understand Creative Commons licenses by allowing them to read the licenses in their own languages. The only versions of the 3.0 international license suite (formerly known as the "unported" licenses) are the English language licenses -- no translations of the 3.0 international license suite are official. '''Please do not use translations of the 3.0 international licenses -- licensors should not link to or otherwise identify any of the unofficial translations referenced from this page.'''

==Unofficial Translation Process for 3.0 License Suite==
'''Note: CC does not recommend new translation projects for the version 3.0 licenses at this time due to the versioning to 4.0. The information provided below is for reference purposes only.'''

'''Who:''' Translation teams may be composed of one or more Affiliate Teams from the CC Affiliate Network and other volunteers within the Creative Commons Community who are interested in making the licenses accessible to a wider community. We strongly suggest having at least one lawyer fluent in both languages on the team because words can often have very specific legal meanings.

'''Step 1:''' The translation team works on a first draft, literal translation of the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ international CC licenses] . Contact the team to find out how to contribute to the translation. Every translated license must include the following disclaimer, also translated:
:"This is an unofficial translation of the Creative Commons ''license title'' into ''language''. It was not published by Creative Commons and is not legally binding and should not be applied to your work''. However, we hope that this translation will help language speakers understand the CC ''license title'' better."

'''Step 2:''' When a draft translation is ready, the translation team posts the draft on the CC wiki for public comment.

'''Step 3:''' The public comment period takes place, lasting anywhere from several weeks to several months depending on the engagement of the community. The comment period allows for conversations around word choice.

'''Step 4:''' Incorporate comments from the communities into a new draft.

Affiliates

2012-11-26T19:14:45Z

Aurelia Schultz:

__NOTOC__{{Infobox|
'''Welcome to our wiki for the CC Affiliate Network!'''

[http://creativecommons.org/international/ The CC Affiliate Network] is comprised of legal experts and other professionals around the world who are associated with Creative Commons, working to build and help maintain communities of CC license users.
}}
{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
! width=33% style="background:#FDAFAF;border: 5px solid white;" | <big>Important Dates 2012</big>
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px solid white;"|
* '''December 9''' -- [[CC 10th Birthday]]
|}

{{Infobox|
==Affiliate Program Enhancements==

In an effort to improve our CC Affiliate Network and program, and CC's global reach and impact, Creative Commons is enhancing existing opportunities for individuals and organizations to engage with CC as well as creating new ones. Among other things, we aim to improve our infrastructure so that we can better support the efforts of our Affiliates and their collaboration with CC directly as well as between themselves and throughout their jurisdiction and region.

===Step 1: Call for Affiliate comments on updated MOU and policies - Complete===

CC posted its updated [[MOU and Policies Summary|Memorandum of Understanding and updated related policies]] for comment by our existing official Affiliates; a summary of the comment phase is available on the MOU Discussion page.

===Step 2: Transitioning to new MOUs===

The second step in this process is to '''improve our relationship with existing Affiliates''' who have MOUs or similar agreements already in place. Many if not most of those agreements are outdated in at least some respects. We believe that updating, standardizing and modularizing these agreements will better serve CC and the Affiliates. Doing so will provide a clearer picture of shared responsibilities and opportunities for improving our outreach, accountability, and accomplishing shared goals like community building.
}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
! width=33% style="background:#F9D163;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-top:5px solid white;" | About Affiliate Teams and Resources
! width=33% style="background:#C5FDAF;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-top:5px solid white;" | Agreements and Policies
! width=33% style="background:#FDAFAF;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-top:5px solid white;" | Legal Tools and Localization
|-
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FCE9B4;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-bottom:5px solid white;" |
* '''[[Jurisdiction_Database| Jurisdiction Database]]''' - a powerful and growing database containing searchable data about the licensing suites and detailed information about Affiliate Teams around the world
* [[Roadmap_Template|Roadmap Template]]
* [[Media:Introduction_to_CC_and_Affiliate_Teams.pdf|Introduction to Creative Commons and Affiliate Teams]]
* [[Media:Self_Assessment_Tool.pdf|Self Assessment Tool]] - describes the roles of Affiliate Team members in more detail
* [[HQ Resources| HQ Resources for Affiliate Teams]]
** [[Grant_Writing|Grant Writing]]
** [[HOWTO_Publish|Publish]]
** [[Marking]]
** [[Media:Screen Shot Guide to Updating Affilitae Team Wiki Pages.pdf|Updating Team Wiki Pages]]

|valign="TOP" style="background:#E8FFDF;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-bottom:5px solid white;" |
'''Current Legal Agreements and Policies'''
* [[MOU|Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]
* [[Internet_Services|Internet Services Policy]]
* [[Merchandising|Merchandising Policy]]
* [[Language|Language Policy]]
'''Archive (superseded -- no longer in effect or used)'''
* [[Media:CCiMOU.pdf | Pre-October 2010 MOU]]
* [[Media:Legal_Affiliate.pdf‎ | Affiliate Agreement: Legal Affiliate]]
* [[Media:Public_Affiliate_Agreement.pdf‎ | Affiliate Agreement: Public Affiliate]]
* [http://ibiblio.org/cccr/docs/cci/schwag.rtf CC Merchandise policy]
* [http://ibiblio.org/cccr/docs/cci/names.rtf Email and Domain name policy]
* [http://ibiblio.org/cccr/docs/cci/web.rtf Website Policy Guidelines (DRAFT)]
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-bottom:5px solid white;"|
* [[CC Ports by Jurisdiction|Ports by Jurisdiction]]
* [[CC0]]
* [[Public_Domain_Mark|Public Domain Mark]]
* [[Translating_CC_Deeds|Translating the License Deeds and Chooser]] - Instructions for using our translation platform, '''Transifex'''
*[[LicenseTranslation|Translating the Licenses and CC0]]
* [[CC Wiki:Translate|Translating the CC wiki]]
* [[Documentation#Help_Translate_Documents|Documents]] - Help create and translate important documents about CC
* [[Videos]] - Source files for CC videos to subtitle and dub into your language
|}

__NOTOC__{{Infobox|
'''Important Note About License Porting'''
Please note that CC’s has formally closed its porting project during the process of versioning to 4.0. Please contribute to the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 versioning process].

* [[Porting_Principle|The Porting Project]] - Discussion about porting
}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
! width=33% style="background:#FCC6FF;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-top:5px solid white;" | Case Studies and Adoption
! width=33% style="background:#B3DDF4;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-top:5px solid white;" | Regions
! width=33% style="background:#F5FC7F;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-top:5px solid white;" | Communication & Events
|-
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FEE9FF;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-bottom:5px solid white;" |
* [[Case_Studies|Case Studies]]
* [[Collecting_Society_Projects|Collecting Society Projects]]
* [[Government|Government]] - Reference listing of known government uses and recommendation of CC licensing and public domain tools
* [[Broadcasting]] - examples of broadcasters using CC

'''Archive'''
* [[Grants|Catalyst Grant Program]]
* [[History|History of CC]]
* [[Sustainability_of_Jurisdiction_Projects|Sustainability of Jurisdiction Projects]]
* [[Transparency]] - Lets be more transparent, right?

|valign="TOP" style="background:#D4EDFB;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-bottom:5px solid white;" |
* [[Regional Project Managers]] - information, meetings and minutes

* CC Africa
* [http://arabic.creativecommons.org/ CC Arab world]
** [[Arab_World_Meeting_2010|Arab World Meeting 2010 - Doha]]
** [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13955 Arab World Meeting 2009] - Doha
* [http://creativecommons.asia/ CC Asia-Pacific]
** [[CC_Asia_Conference_2010|CC Asia Conference 2010]] - Seoul
** [http://cc-asia-pacific.wikidot.com/commonscrossroads Commons Crossroads: CC Asia 2009] - Manila
** [http://meeting.creativecommons.org.tw/ ACIA 2008] - Taipel
* [http://europe.creativecommons.org/ CC Europe]
** Europe Meeting Oct, 2010 - Berlin
** Europe Meeting Jun, 2010 - Turin
** Europe Meeting Apr, 2010 - Istanbul
** Europe Meeting Oct, 2009 - Barcelona
** Europe Meeting Jan, 2009 - Zürich
** Europe Meeting Apr, 2008 - Vilnius
* CC Latin America (Latam)
** Latam Meeting 2010 - Buenos Aires
** [[Latam_2009|Latam Regional Meeting 2009]] - Loja
** [[Latam_Commons_2008|Latam Commons 2008]] - Santiago
* CC North America

|valign="TOP" style="background:#FCFFCD;border-left:5px solid white;border-right:5px solid white;border-bottom:5px solid white;" |
* [[Affiliate_Reporting]] - Results of annual affiliate reporting
* [[Affiliate_Calls]]
* [http://creativecommons.org/discuss Mailing Lists]
* [[Contact| Contact CC staff]]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/newsletter Newsletter]
* CC Affiliates are always welcome to visit and work from the CC office. Please contact staff to make arrangements.
'''Current Events'''
* [[Global_Meeting_2011| Global Meeting 2011]] - Request for Proposals
* [[CCSuperhero_Toolkit|Fall Fundraising Campaign]] - CC Superhero Toolkit 2010
* [[Salon| CC Salons]]
* [[Birthday_Party| CC Birthday Parties]]
'''Archive'''
* [[CCi_Legal_Day_2008| '''CCi Legal Day 2008''']], Sapporo
* [[CCi_Affiliates_Meeting_%40_iSummit| '''CCi Affiliates Meeting @ iSummit 2008''']], Sapporo
* [[CCi_Legal_Day_2007| CCi Legal Day 2007]], Dubrovnik
* [[FSCONS'08]]
|}

[[Category:International]]
{{Project}}

4.0/Draft 3

2012-11-16T22:49:05Z

Aurelia Schultz: Created page with "==Welcome to the Public Discussion of 4.0d3== (view and download 4.0d3 coming soon), and ( view in html coming soon) This page provides information specific to the public dis..."

==Welcome to the Public Discussion of 4.0d3==
(view and download 4.0d3 coming soon), and ( view in html coming soon)

This page provides information specific to the public discussion of the third draft of version 4.0 (4.0d3). The drafts presented for comment are the result of discussions with the CC community and CC’s many Affiliates via the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses license-discuss email lists], [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ wiki pages], [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2/Regional_calls affiliate consultations] and other input.

Please contribute to the discussion on the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/ license development list].

We expect the public comment period be announced shortly. In this phase, we plan to focus on final policy questions and refinements to the current draft.

===Treatment of issues and proposals in 4.0d3===
The [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0#Items_for_discussion discussion topic pages] on our [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 4.0 wiki] provide details on how policy and drafting decisions have been made in 4.0d3. We encourage you to review the explanations at the top of each page (marked as such) for the most comprehensive explanation. As well, please be sure to review the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox Sandbox] page and our new [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Compatibility Compatibility] page. Finally, the numbered proposals on each topic page have a corresponding note if the topic was addressed in some manner in this draft. We include occasional prompts to highlight areas where additional feedback is especially requested.

===Policy and Drafting Decisions===
Coming Soon

*'''''

*'''''

*'''''

*''''
*''''

===Pending Discussion Topics===
We welcome feedback on all changes in this draft, as well as the several identified for consideration in this public discussion period:

Coming Soon.
*''''

*'''''

*'''''
*'''''

*'''''

*'''''

===Feedback requests, including topics and policies still under consideration===
Please join the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses CC license-discuss list] or add your input directly to the CC [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 4.0 wiki].

4.0/Drafts

2012-11-16T22:27:56Z

Aurelia Schultz:

==Launch, drafting and process information==
* Global Summit (Sept 2011), [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29639 outcomes related to 4.0]
* Public discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676 launch (December 2011)]
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 4.0 wiki] detailing objectives, process, topic/issue page

==[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_1 Draft 1 Details]==
''(Note that only BY-NC-SA (international) is presented in draft form, as the other licenses are easily crafted from its terms. Comments are not limited solely to this one license but should be presented on the license suite as a whole)''
* Publication date: 2 April 2012
** [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 Blog post]
** [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006720.html Announcement to license-discuss]
* Documents
** 4.0d1 BY-NC-SA (international)
***[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/3/36/4point0_draft_1.odt ODT]
***[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f5/4point0_draft_1.PDF PDF]
***[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt TXT]
** Side-by-side comparison to BY-NC-SA 3.0 (international), with notations
*** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/9/91/BY_NC_SA_comparison_chart.pdf PDF] (only)
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_1 Introduction to draft, policies, feedback requests]
* Comment period: 2 April 2012 thru May 2012
** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_1/Regional_calls Regional Calls]

==[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2 Draft 2 Details]==
''(Note that BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are presented. Comments are not limited solely to these two licenses, however.)''
* Publication date: 1 August 2012
** [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33632 Blog post]
** [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-August/007107.html Announcement to license-discuss]
* Documents
** 4.0d2 BY-NC-SA (international)
***[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/9/94/4.0d2_(final_by_nc_sa_31_July).odt ODT]
***[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/7/75/4.0d2_(final_by_nc_sa_31_July).pdf PDF]
***[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/4/43/4.0d2_(final_by_nc_sa_31_July).txt TXT]
***[http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/drafts/by-nc-sa_4.0_draft.html HTML]
** Side-by-side comparison between BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 and 4.0d2 (international), with abbreviated explanations
*** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/3/3f/Comparison_Chart_d1_to_d2_(final_31-July).pdf PDF] (only)
** 4.0d2 BY-SA (international)
*** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/0b/4.0d2_(final_by_sa_31_July).odt ODT]
*** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/1/1b/4.0d2_(final_by_sa_31_July).pdf PDF]
*** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/8/89/4.0d2_(final_by_sa_31_July).txt TXT]
** Attribution comparison chart (across 3.0, d1 and d2) [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/5/5f/Attribution_comparision_(4-1.0d2_final_for_31_July).pdf PDF] (only)
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2#Feedback_requests.2C_including_topics_and_policies_still_under_consideration Introduction to draft, policies, feedback requests]
* Comment period: 1 August 2012 thru approximately 15 September 2012
** [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2/Regional_calls Regional Calls]

==[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_3 Draft 3 Details]==
''(Note that BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are presented. Comments are not limited solely to these two licenses, however.)''
* Publication date: expected November 2012
** Blog post coming
** Announcement to license-discuss coming
* Documents
** 4.0d3 BY-NC-SA (international)
*** ODT
*** PDF
*** TBT
*** HTML
** Side-by-side comparison between BY-NC-SA 4.0d2 and 4.0d3 (international), with abbreviated explanations
*** PDF (only)
** 4.0d3 BY-SA (international)
*** ODT
*** PDF
*** TXT
** Attribution comparison chart (across 3.0, d1, d2 and d3) PDF (only)
* Introduction to draft, policies, feedback requests coming
* Comment period:

{{Translations
| articles = Ru:4.0/Проекты
}}

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T22:02:37Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Internet Services Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: December 2010
::Final policy as posted: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/3/37/CC_ISP.pdf pdf]
''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy|Comment verison]]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T22:01:03Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Internet Services Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: December 2010
::Final policy as posted: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/3/37/CC_ISP.pdf]
''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy|Comment verison]]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

File:CC ISP.pdf

2012-11-07T22:00:20Z

Aurelia Schultz:

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:58:30Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Internet Services Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: December 2010
::Final policy as posted: [[Internet Services Policy]]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy|Comment verison]]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:58:13Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Internet Services Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: December 2010
::Final policy as posted: [[Internet Services Policy]]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy|Comment verison]]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:53:38Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Internet Services Policy' */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy|Comment verison]]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:53:07Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy|Comment verison]]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:52:25Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* CC Affiliate Network Annual Report */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''CC Affiliate Network Annual Report'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Annual_Report|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:51:39Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Roadmap */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [[Roadmap_Template]]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:50:20Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Roadmap */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''Roadmap'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap_Template|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:49:49Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Roadmap */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: August 2010
::[[Roadmap|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:38:51Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: August 2010
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-07T21:27:46Z

Aurelia Schultz:

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
===''' Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[MOU|Comment Version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

===''Internet Services Policy'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::[[[Internet Services|Comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: December 2010

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''Merchandising Policy'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::[[Merchandising|comment version]]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

Legal Tools Translation

2012-11-02T20:17:45Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Translation Process */

=Welcome to CC's License and Legal Tools Translation Project!=
''Please note this is an evolving project and we welcome feedback.''

This is the main portal for projects translating the suite of six CC licenses and the CC0 public domain dedication.

If the CC license deeds are not yet available in your language, we suggest beginning translation work with those. The deeds are simpler and read more often than the license legal text. To work on translating the license deeds, visit [[Translating_CC_Deeds|Translating CC Deeds]].

If you are interested in translating CC0, please see the proposed [[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]] currently under discussion.

==Languages with finalized translations of licenses and legal tools==
None at this time

==Languages currently being translated==
'''If you do not see your language here, please contact CC HQ at affiliate-program@creativecommons.org before creating a translation page. Thank you.'''
* [ar] [[ArabicLegalTools|Arabic]]
* [sq] [[AlbanianLegalTools|Albanian]]
* [zy] [[ChineseLegalTools|Chinese]]
* [id] [[IndonesianLegalTools|Indonesian]]
* [it] [[ItalianLegalTools|Italian]]
* [fr] [[FrenchLegalTools|French]]
* [ms] [[MalayLegalTools|Malay]]
* [ru] [[RussianLegalTools|Russian]]
* [uk] [[UkrainianLegalTools|Ukrainian]]

'''Note:''' Translations are to help people understand Creative Commons licenses by allowing them to read the licenses in their own languages. The English international licenses (formerly known as the "unported" licenses) are the only legally effective international licenses. No translations of the international are official. '''Please do not use translations of the international licenses as legally binding licenses -- you should not link to the license translations referenced from this page.'''

==Linguistic Translation Process for License Suite==
'''Who:''' Translation teams may be composed of one or more Affiliate Teams from the CC Affiliate Network and other volunteers within the Creative Commons Community who are interested in making the licenses accessible to a wider community. We strongly suggest having at least one lawyer fluent in both languages on the team because words can often have very specific legal meanings.

'''Step 1:''' The translation team works on a first draft, literal translation of the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ international CC licenses] . Contact the team to find out how to contribute to the translation. Every translated license must include the following disclaimer, also translated:
:"This is an unofficial translation of the Creative Commons ''license title'' into ''language''. It was not published by Creative Commons and is not legally binding and should not be applied to your work''. However, we hope that this translation will help language speakers understand the CC ''license title'' better."

'''Step 2:''' When a draft translation is ready, the translation team posts the draft on the CC wiki for public comment.

'''Step 3:''' The public comment period takes place, lasting anywhere from several weeks to several months depending on the engagement of the community. The comment period allows for conversations around word choice.

'''Step 4:''' Incorporate comments from the communities into a new draft.

==Protocol for Approved CC0Translations==
If you wish to create an official [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode CC0] translation. Please view the [[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]] page.

Legal Tools Translation

2012-11-02T20:15:01Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Welcome to CC's License and Legal Tools Translation Project! */

=Welcome to CC's License and Legal Tools Translation Project!=
''Please note this is an evolving project and we welcome feedback.''

This is the main portal for projects translating the suite of six CC licenses and the CC0 public domain dedication.

If the CC license deeds are not yet available in your language, we suggest beginning translation work with those. The deeds are simpler and read more often than the license legal text. To work on translating the license deeds, visit [[Translating_CC_Deeds|Translating CC Deeds]].

If you are interested in translating CC0, please see the proposed [[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]] currently under discussion.

==Languages with finalized translations of licenses and legal tools==
None at this time

==Languages currently being translated==
'''If you do not see your language here, please contact CC HQ at affiliate-program@creativecommons.org before creating a translation page. Thank you.'''
* [ar] [[ArabicLegalTools|Arabic]]
* [sq] [[AlbanianLegalTools|Albanian]]
* [zy] [[ChineseLegalTools|Chinese]]
* [id] [[IndonesianLegalTools|Indonesian]]
* [it] [[ItalianLegalTools|Italian]]
* [fr] [[FrenchLegalTools|French]]
* [ms] [[MalayLegalTools|Malay]]
* [ru] [[RussianLegalTools|Russian]]
* [uk] [[UkrainianLegalTools|Ukrainian]]

'''Note:''' Translations are to help people understand Creative Commons licenses by allowing them to read the licenses in their own languages. The English international licenses (formerly known as the "unported" licenses) are the only legally effective international licenses. No translations of the international are official. '''Please do not use translations of the international licenses as legally binding licenses -- you should not link to the license translations referenced from this page.'''

==Translation Process==
'''Who:''' Translation teams may be composed of one or more Affiliate Teams from the CC Affiliate Network and other volunteers within the Creative Commons Community who are interested in making the licenses accessible to a wider community. We strongly suggest having at least one lawyer fluent in both languages on the team because words can often have very specific legal meanings.

'''Step 1:''' The translation team works on a first draft, literal translation of the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ international CC licenses] or [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode CC0]. Contact the team to find out how to contribute to the translation. Every translated license must include the following disclaimer, also translated:
:"This is an unofficial translation of the Creative Commons ''license title'' into ''language''. It was not published by Creative Commons and is not legally binding and should not be applied to your work''. However, we hope that this translation will help language speakers understand the CC ''license title'' better."

'''Step 2:''' When a draft translation is ready, the translation team posts the draft on the CC wiki for public comment.

'''Step 3:''' The public comment period takes place, lasting anywhere from several weeks to several months depending on the engagement of the community. The comment period allows for conversations around word choice.

'''Step 4:''' Incorporate comments from the communities into a new draft.

Protocol for Approved Translations - coming soon

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T20:07:22Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* CC Affiliate Network Annual Report */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T20:06:55Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* CC Affiliate Network Annual Report */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: November 2010
::Final Affiliate Network 2010 Report results: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Affiliate_Reporting/2010]

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T20:03:36Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Merchandising Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: October 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T20:00:43Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Internet Services Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T19:59:29Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: July 2010
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T19:57:40Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy */

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

Key points:
* Outlines how CC Affiliates and community members can create official versions of CC0 for their communities with a 5 step process
* Encourages coordination between multiple communities speaking the same language
* Includes public discussion period with community of same-language speakers
* Original English version of CC0 controls in event of dispute involving interpretation of the legal text

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy

2012-11-02T19:38:54Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy */

[[MOU and Policies Summary| Return to Summary page]]

Creative Commons has established the following Official CC0 Translation Process and Policy (“CC0 Policy”) to facilitate adoption and understanding of CC0 as a universal tool for dedicating works to the worldwide public domain.

==Plain English Summary==
* The CC0 translation process consists of 5 steps:
# Preparing a draft translation of the CC0 legal code
# Public comment period
# Preparing the final, official translation
# Translating supplemental materials
# Launching the official translation and updating the CC0 Chooser
*Affiliates are the preferred translation team leaders, although other interested community members may propose a translation project or participate as a team member. Third parties may be hired to translate but must be paid for and supervised by the affiliates.
*Translation teams coordinate with and encourage participation by other jurisdictions where the target translation language is used.
*Proposals for leading a translation project should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Coordinator and contain:
** Language for translation
** Other active CC jurisdictions that use the same language
** Plan for coordinating with those other jurisdictions
** Proposed timeline

==Overview==
CC0 is designed for use worldwide, without any need for adapting the legal code to local laws. For CC0 to reach its fullest potential, CC encourages linguistic translations of the legal code and deed into as many languages as possible. This wiki page describes the policies and processes for preparing and publishing official translations of the CC0 legal code.

CC0 translation projects are coordinated and overseen by CC’s legal team in collaboration with the global network team.

Creative Commons reserves the exclusive right to approve and host official translations of CC0, as well as to modify this process and adjust translation projects at any time. Each official translation is hosted at a specified uniform resource indicator on CC’s website, consistent with the protocol used for our licenses and other legal tools.

Affirmers (those who are choosing to dedicate works to the worldwide public domain using CC0) have the option to select the original English legal code or an official translation through the [http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ CC0 Chooser]. The original English legal text controls, however, in the event of a dispute about the meaning of an official translation.[1] The CC0 Chooser, official translations and deeds all contain prominent statements and notices to this effect.

==The Translation Process – New Teams==
The process for developing new CC0 translations (each is called a “translation project”) is described below. For translation projects already in progress as of the effective date of this CC0 Policy, please refer to the guidelines below [link to below section].
Creative Commons prefers that each translation project be led by active affiliates under a current MOU with Creative Commons. For this reason, the process described below anticipates new translation project proposals to come from affiliates. However, interested community members are also welcome to propose a translation project or participate as part of a translation team.

==Language; Translation Project Proposals and Selection==
Creative Commons accepts proposals from affiliates to coordinate the linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code, deed and related information materials into the jurisdiction’s official language(s), or other language(s) in which the team members are proficient. Languages transcend national boundaries, and CC acknowledges that several affiliate teams around the world share an official or primary language. CC’s policy is to publish a single, official translation for any given language unless an important reason exists to allow more that one. This mirrors CC’s policy for translations of deeds. Affiliate teams wanting to coordinate translation projects are expected to accommodate and encourage participation of affiliate teams from those other jurisdictions.

Proposals to coordinate an translation project should be directed to the affiliate team’s Regional Coordinator(s). Proposals should (i) identify the language(s) into which the affiliate is offering to coordinate, (ii) identify other current CC affiliate jurisdictions where the language(s) are officially or primarily used, (iii) summarize plans for coordinating with and encouraging the participation of other affiliate teams as well as the broader communities within jurisdictions having the same official or primary language, and (iv) propose a timeline for completing the translation project. Proposals may be posted by CC for comment or to encourage participation by those in jurisdictions sharing an official or primary language.

Regional Coordinators evaluate proposals in consultation with the CC legal team. Translation project plans, translation leads and other team members are then formalized and officially announced through posting on the CC website or on appropriate email lists.

Translation teams offering to arrange for a third party to conduct the translation are responsible for all costs associated with the translation, supervising the translation process and, prior to posting the draft for public comment (below), conducting a final review.

If CC is unable to locate a current affiliate team willing to coordinate a translation project for a particular language where demonstrated demand for an official translation exists, CC may open the process to the public or arrange for third parties to undertake the translation responsibilities in this CC0 Policy.
The person(s) responsible for drafting, or overseeing the drafting, of a translation of the CC0 legal code are referred to as “translation lead(s),” and those participating on the translation project, the “translation team.”

==Preparing the First Translation Draft==
Once finalized, the translation leads coordinate the work of the translation team in linguistically translating the CC0 legal code from English into the identified language. All translations must include an equivalent of the following, the final text of which is determined by CC: “This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”
When finalized, including any review and edits by the translation leads if the drafting involved a third party, the translation leads send the first draft to their Regional Coordinator, who will provide it to the CC legal team. At the same time, the translation leads should deliver a written summary (in English) containing a description of any translation challenges they experienced.
The CC legal team reviews the translation of the legal code and the written explanation, all in collaboration with the translation leads and the Regional Coordinators. This may involve modifications to the draft and a request for additional information, and continues until CC provisionally approves the draft as ready for public comment.

==Public Comment Period==
The public comment period is designed to ensure the highest quality linguistic translations possible. Drafts are posted to the CC wiki at [link to translation landing page] for public comment and feedback for a reasonable period of time, typically about 30-45 days. The posting and public comment period is coordinated with the translation leads.

==Preparing the Official Translation==
At the conclusion of the public comment period, and following resolution of comments by the CC legal team and the translation leads, the translation leads coordinate preparation and submission of the final official translation to CC in the format requested by CC (currently XHTML). The official translation is posted by CC on the Creative Commons website.

All official translations include an equivalent of the following, the final placement and text of which is determined by CC:
“This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”

==Translating Informational Materials ==
The translation leads are responsible for coordinating the translation of CC0-related information material. The materials to be translated will be coordinated with Creative commons, but typically will include the CC0 deed (if not already translated), and may include the CC0 FAQs and other website materials relating to CC’s public domain tools (including CC0).

==Translations in Progress (as of effective date)==
CC is aware that several affiliate teams are preparing or have concluded a linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code. Those affiliate teams wanting to have the translations approved as official under this CC0 Policy should notify their Regional Coordinators and provide the following information:
# Language of translation;
# Persons involved in the translation;
# Description of the translation process undertaken; and
# Description of any public comment process and involvement (or request for involvement) of other affiliate teams from jurisdictions with the same official or primary language.

The CC legal team will review the information with the Regional Coordinators and the requesting affiliate team, and will make a determination as to appropriate next steps consistent with the processes and principles described above.

[1] [explanation TK]

CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy

2012-11-02T19:37:34Z

Aurelia Schultz: Created page with "=CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy= Creative Commons has established the following Official CC0 Translation Process and Policy (“CC0 Policy”) to facilitate adopt..."

=CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy=
Creative Commons has established the following Official CC0 Translation Process and Policy (“CC0 Policy”) to facilitate adoption and understanding of CC0 as a universal tool for dedicating works to the worldwide public domain.

==Plain English Summary==
* The CC0 translation process consists of 5 steps:
# Preparing a draft translation of the CC0 legal code
# Public comment period
# Preparing the final, official translation
# Translating supplemental materials
# Launching the official translation and updating the CC0 Chooser
*Affiliates are the preferred translation team leaders, although other interested community members may propose a translation project or participate as a team member. Third parties may be hired to translate but must be paid for and supervised by the affiliates.
*Translation teams coordinate with and encourage participation by other jurisdictions where the target translation language is used.
*Proposals for leading a translation project should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Coordinator and contain:
** Language for translation
** Other active CC jurisdictions that use the same language
** Plan for coordinating with those other jurisdictions
** Proposed timeline

==Overview==
CC0 is designed for use worldwide, without any need for adapting the legal code to local laws. For CC0 to reach its fullest potential, CC encourages linguistic translations of the legal code and deed into as many languages as possible. This wiki page describes the policies and processes for preparing and publishing official translations of the CC0 legal code.

CC0 translation projects are coordinated and overseen by CC’s legal team in collaboration with the global network team.

Creative Commons reserves the exclusive right to approve and host official translations of CC0, as well as to modify this process and adjust translation projects at any time. Each official translation is hosted at a specified uniform resource indicator on CC’s website, consistent with the protocol used for our licenses and other legal tools.

Affirmers (those who are choosing to dedicate works to the worldwide public domain using CC0) have the option to select the original English legal code or an official translation through the [http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ CC0 Chooser]. The original English legal text controls, however, in the event of a dispute about the meaning of an official translation.[1] The CC0 Chooser, official translations and deeds all contain prominent statements and notices to this effect.

==The Translation Process – New Teams==
The process for developing new CC0 translations (each is called a “translation project”) is described below. For translation projects already in progress as of the effective date of this CC0 Policy, please refer to the guidelines below [link to below section].
Creative Commons prefers that each translation project be led by active affiliates under a current MOU with Creative Commons. For this reason, the process described below anticipates new translation project proposals to come from affiliates. However, interested community members are also welcome to propose a translation project or participate as part of a translation team.

==Language; Translation Project Proposals and Selection==
Creative Commons accepts proposals from affiliates to coordinate the linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code, deed and related information materials into the jurisdiction’s official language(s), or other language(s) in which the team members are proficient. Languages transcend national boundaries, and CC acknowledges that several affiliate teams around the world share an official or primary language. CC’s policy is to publish a single, official translation for any given language unless an important reason exists to allow more that one. This mirrors CC’s policy for translations of deeds. Affiliate teams wanting to coordinate translation projects are expected to accommodate and encourage participation of affiliate teams from those other jurisdictions.

Proposals to coordinate an translation project should be directed to the affiliate team’s Regional Coordinator(s). Proposals should (i) identify the language(s) into which the affiliate is offering to coordinate, (ii) identify other current CC affiliate jurisdictions where the language(s) are officially or primarily used, (iii) summarize plans for coordinating with and encouraging the participation of other affiliate teams as well as the broader communities within jurisdictions having the same official or primary language, and (iv) propose a timeline for completing the translation project. Proposals may be posted by CC for comment or to encourage participation by those in jurisdictions sharing an official or primary language.

Regional Coordinators evaluate proposals in consultation with the CC legal team. Translation project plans, translation leads and other team members are then formalized and officially announced through posting on the CC website or on appropriate email lists.

Translation teams offering to arrange for a third party to conduct the translation are responsible for all costs associated with the translation, supervising the translation process and, prior to posting the draft for public comment (below), conducting a final review.

If CC is unable to locate a current affiliate team willing to coordinate a translation project for a particular language where demonstrated demand for an official translation exists, CC may open the process to the public or arrange for third parties to undertake the translation responsibilities in this CC0 Policy.
The person(s) responsible for drafting, or overseeing the drafting, of a translation of the CC0 legal code are referred to as “translation lead(s),” and those participating on the translation project, the “translation team.”

==Preparing the First Translation Draft==
Once finalized, the translation leads coordinate the work of the translation team in linguistically translating the CC0 legal code from English into the identified language. All translations must include an equivalent of the following, the final text of which is determined by CC: “This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”
When finalized, including any review and edits by the translation leads if the drafting involved a third party, the translation leads send the first draft to their Regional Coordinator, who will provide it to the CC legal team. At the same time, the translation leads should deliver a written summary (in English) containing a description of any translation challenges they experienced.
The CC legal team reviews the translation of the legal code and the written explanation, all in collaboration with the translation leads and the Regional Coordinators. This may involve modifications to the draft and a request for additional information, and continues until CC provisionally approves the draft as ready for public comment.

==Public Comment Period==
The public comment period is designed to ensure the highest quality linguistic translations possible. Drafts are posted to the CC wiki at [link to translation landing page] for public comment and feedback for a reasonable period of time, typically about 30-45 days. The posting and public comment period is coordinated with the translation leads.

==Preparing the Official Translation==
At the conclusion of the public comment period, and following resolution of comments by the CC legal team and the translation leads, the translation leads coordinate preparation and submission of the final official translation to CC in the format requested by CC (currently XHTML). The official translation is posted by CC on the Creative Commons website.

All official translations include an equivalent of the following, the final placement and text of which is determined by CC:
“This is an Official [language] Translation of CC0 1.0 Universal. In the event of any dispute involving interpretation of the legal code, the original English CC0 1.0 Universal legal code [link] controls.”

==Translating Informational Materials ==
The translation leads are responsible for coordinating the translation of CC0-related information material. The materials to be translated will be coordinated with Creative commons, but typically will include the CC0 deed (if not already translated), and may include the CC0 FAQs and other website materials relating to CC’s public domain tools (including CC0).

==Translations in Progress (as of effective date)==
CC is aware that several affiliate teams are preparing or have concluded a linguistic translation of the CC0 legal code. Those affiliate teams wanting to have the translations approved as official under this CC0 Policy should notify their Regional Coordinators and provide the following information:
# Language of translation;
# Persons involved in the translation;
# Description of the translation process undertaken; and
# Description of any public comment process and involvement (or request for involvement) of other affiliate teams from jurisdictions with the same official or primary language.

The CC legal team will review the information with the Regional Coordinators and the requesting affiliate team, and will make a determination as to appropriate next steps consistent with the processes and principles described above.

[1] [explanation TK]

MOU and Policies Summary

2012-11-02T18:29:02Z

Aurelia Schultz:

= of Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment =
[[International| Return to Affiliates Page]]

=='''Policies Submitted for Affiliate Comment -- Welcome!'''==

Creative Commons is committed to receiving input from its affiliate network before finalizing new policies that particularly impact them. To that end, we invite your input on the following policies. Please leave your feedback!

===Leaving Feedback===
To leave feedback, you will need to login to the wiki. You can login or create an account [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=International here].
At the top of each page, you will find a link to that document's discussion page. Please click the link and add your comments to the page. You may also email comments privately to affiliate-program [at] creativecommons [dot] org (which goes to the global network team) or to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

We hope you will contribute.

==Available for Comment==
==='''[[MOU| Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final MOU as posted (sample only): [link]

''Key Points:''
* Detailing of responsibilities of CC and Affiliates for those activities
* Provides for license porting and translation of CC0
* Lightweight reporting structure for better collaboration and feedback
* Open communication channels
* Modularization (i.e., breakout) of different program-related activities, for clarity
::Modularization means that the different sections, or modules, in the sample MOU will be selected for inclusion in a specific MOU based on who is signing the MOU and what activities are important to the jurisdiction. An example would be that Public Lead MOUs might not include the section, "Advisory on Law and Legal Developments."

==='''[[Internet Services| Internet Services Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Allows CC jurisdictions to manage and run their own websites, Facebook pages, Twitter ids and other internet services in order to better engage with their communities
* Clarifies who is responsible for which aspects of these services
* Provides detailed information for domain name registrations
* Will have an accompanying non-lawyer information sheet, breaking down the provisions in the policy for the people who actually set-up and maintain the internet services

==='''[[Merchandising| Merchandising Policy]]'''===

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final policy as posted: [link]

''Key Points:''
* Creative Commons trademarks and logos (CC Marks) are valuable and need to be protected. CC Marks include jurisdiction-specific marks designed by Affiliates.
* Affiliates may use the trademarks and logos in additional ways, beyond the permissions granted the general public, subject to conditions.
* CC will provide schwag to give away at launch parties.
* Affiliates may give away or sell merchandise using the CC Marks at CC-related events that are consistent with our mission and purpose.
* Proceeds from sales may only be used to recoup direct costs and thereafter to perform obligations under the MOU.

==='''[[Roadmap_Template| Roadmap]]'''===
The Roadmap Template will be of interest to Affiliates because all Affiliates will be expected (at or before signing a new MOU) to submit a Roadmap about the project(s) they agree to undertake in the MOU. Roadmaps will be submitted annually for the coming year. Your feedback is welcome.
Sample of a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/New_Zealand completed Roadmap]

::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments closed: [insert date we closed]
::Final Roadmap Template as posted: [link]

==='''[[Annual_Report| CC Affiliate Network Annual Report]]'''===
All Affiliate Teams will need to complete the Annual Report each year. Information in this report will be used by Regional Coordinators, CC HQ, the CC Board of Directors and the CC Affiliate Network.

==='''[[CC0 Official Translation Process and Policy]]'''===
::Comments open: [insert first date]
::Comments close: [insert date we plan to close]

[Insert summary/highlights]

==Other Documents and Policies==
These are some of the other Creative Commons policies and documents that are being updated but are not formally submitted for review or comment by Affiliates. Of course, your comments and suggestions for improving these are always welcome - please email those to CC's General Counsel, Diane Peters (diane [at] creativecommons [dot] org).

Internet Services

2012-10-15T16:31:38Z

Aurelia Schultz:

[[MOU and Policies Summary| Return to Summary page]]

To share your feedback on the Internet Services Policy, please go to the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_Services&action=edit&redlink=1| Internet Services Policy discussion page] and type your comments there.

[[Media:isp.pdf | PDF Version]]

--Please do not edit any text below this line.--
----

== Creative Commons Internet Services Policy ==
'''Plain English Summary'''
The overarching purpose of this Internet Service Policy is to ensure that information provided via the Internet about Creative Commons by our Affiliates is consistent and in the best interests of all those dedicated to CC around the world.
* This Internet Services Policy outlines the requirements to which Creative Commons and CC Affiliates must adhere when operating a website, email account, Facebook page, Twitter account or other internet service for a Creative Commons jurisdiction project.
* Affiliates are ultimately responsible for all content on any internet service.
* Any use of internet services must comply with CC’s policies and memorandums of understanding.
* Licenses, license choosers, translated documents and legal tools should never be hosted anywhere other than the main Creative Commons website at http:creativecommons.org.

- - - - -

The Internet Services Policy (“Policy”) complements the Trademark Policy, Merchandising Policy and other policies available at http://creativecommons.org/policies, (collectively “CC Policies”) and the agreements signed by Creative Commons Corporation (“CC” or “Creative Commons”) and its Affiliate(s) (“Affiliate”), which may include a Memorandum of Understanding, Legal Lead Affiliate Agreement, Project Lead Affiliate Agreement or previous incarnations of such agreements (for purposes of this Policy, collectively “MOUs” and each an “MOU”).

'''PURPOSE'''

Creative Commons appreciates the time, energy and hard work that all Affiliates contribute to CC projects around the globe. In order to maximize the impact of those efforts, CC and Affiliates need to work together to ensure a uniform Creative Commons message and protect our most valuable assets, which include our collective goodwill and reputation. We all strive to reach the public and connect with our communities in many ways. The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that information provided via the internet to the public about Creative Commons by Creative Commons Headquarters our Affiliates is accurate and in the best interests of all those dedicated to CC around the world.

This Policy governs the creation, and use of, domain names, email addresses, websites and other internet-based contact points, including but not limited to Twitter accounts and Facebook pages, (collectively, “Internet Services”) used in connection with the Project (as described in the MOU). This includes but is not limited to Internet Services displaying or incorporating any of the Creative Commons Marks (as defined in the Creative Commons Trademark Policy [link]). Websites (as that term is used in this Policy) include both websites for the Project within Affiliate’s jurisdiction (“Project Website”) and websites for more than one jurisdiction, such as websites for a specific geographical or geopolitical region (“Regional Websites”).

'''TERMS OF POLICY'''

Creative Commons will consider deviations from this Policy on a case by case basis through conversations with Affiliate. As confirmed by the signing of the MOU, Creative Commons and Affiliate agree:

;I. Domain Names. If Affiliate chooses to operate a Project Website or Regional Website, the Website must operate at a domain name chosen in accordance with the following:

:(a) CC Sub-Domains. CC will make available to each jurisdiction, at Affiliate’s request, a sub-domain of the Creative Commons main website at http://creativecommons.org (“CC HQ Website”) for Affiliate to use in conjunction with the Project. The sub-domain will consist of xx.creativecommons.org, where xx is the ccTLD top level domain extension for the Project’s jurisdiction.

:(b) Subdomain Administration. If Affiliate requests that CC establish a sub-domain, CC will grant Affiliate administrator access privileges to the sub-domain for so long as Affiliate is in compliance with this Policy and officially connected with the Project through an MOU.

:(c) Acquiring a Domain Name. Affiliate acknowledges that CC’s general policy is not to pay to acquire domain names that incorporate the Marks for example a domain name creativecommons.org.xx or creativecommons.xx. Where CC has not acquired a domain name that incorporates the Marks in the Project’s jurisdiction, Affiliate may choose to acquire such a domain name at its own cost, provided that:

::(i) Affiliate notifies CC in advance (if possible) that it intends to acquire the domain name, and whether the domain name will be acquired according to the procedure described in clause I (e) or I (f); and,

::(ii) Within a reasonable time of acquisition of the domain name, Affiliate emails domains@creativecommons.org with the details of the domain name and the registration data.

:(d) Registering in CC’s Name. If Affiliate chooses to acquire a domain name that incorporates the Marks and the registration authority’s rules permit the domain name to be registered in CC’s name, Affiliate must register it in CC’s name. Up-to-date registration information can be obtained by emailing domains@creativecommons.org.

:(e) Registering in Affiliate’s Name. If Affiliate chooses to acquire a domain name that incorporates any of the Marks and the registration authority’s rules do not permit the domain name to be registered in CC’s name, then Affiliate may register the domain name in its own name provided that:

::(i) Affiliate agrees that it holds the domain name for and on behalf of CC in accordance with the Trademark Policy;

::(ii) Affiliate ensures that the administrative contact on the account will at all times be domains@creativecommons.org.;

::(iii) If the rules governing the registration of domain names in the Project’s jurisdiction change such that CC can hold the domain name in CC’s own name, Affiliate will notify Creative Commons within a reasonable time of becoming aware of this change and CC and Affiliate will decide together whether and when the domain name should be transferred to Creative Commons;

::(iv) If CC and Affiliate agree to transfer the domain name to Creative Commons, Affiliate will do all things reasonably requested by CC to effect the transfer to CC, at CC’s expense; and

::(v) Affiliate will only transfer the domain name to a third party with the prior written consent of CC.

:(f) Competing Domain Names. Affiliate should notify Creative Commons as soon as is reasonably practicable if Affiliate becomes aware of any domain name registrations in the Project jurisdiction that use any Marks or are similar to any Marks.

:(g) Unforeseen Circumstances. Affiliate and CC acknowledge that this policy cannot cover every situation and new circumstances may arise. Affiliate undertakes to do all things CC reasonably requests.

;II. Website(s) and Public Portal(s). If Affiliate chooses to operate a Project Website, Regional Website or other Internet Service that provides information about Creative Commons, such as a Facebook page or Twitter account (each a “Public Portal” for purposes of this Policy) in their Affiliate capacity for the purpose of undertaking activities in connection with the Project, then the following apply:

:(a) Purpose of Project Website. The Project Website (if any) is to serve as the principal public information portal about the Project, which should include educational, research and promotional programs that encourage and enable the sharing of work within the Project jurisdiction through the use of the six Creative Commons licenses: Attribution (BY), NoDerivs (BY-ND), NonCommercial (BY-NC), ShareAlike (BY-SA), NonCommercial NoDervis (BY-NC-ND), and NonCommercial ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA), (collectively “Licenses”); and other legal instruments, such as the CC0 waiver, patent licenses, patent non-assert tools, and other previous and forthcoming licenses and tools published by CC (collectively “Legal Tools”).

:(b) Purpose of Regional Website. Regional Websites are to serve as a collaboration point between jurisdictions in the region, and provide information about Creative Commons activities in the region as a whole.

:(c) Purpose of Public Portal(s). Each Public Portal (if any) is to serve as a secondary or supplemental portal to the Project Website or Regional Website for undertaking activities in connection with the Project or Region and/or providing information about Creative Commons. If there is no existing Project Website or Regional Website, the Public Portal will serve as the principal public information portal and will provide information as stated above in II (a).

:(d) Relationship of Public Portals with Website. All Public Portals must provide a link to the main Project Website or Regional Website when it exists, and to the CC HQ Website if no Project Website or Regional Website exists.

:(e) Quality. Affiliate will ensure the Website is of a high quality and value consistent with the CC HQ Website and other Creative Commons project websites, but should not be so confusingly similar that it misleads Website visitors into thinking that the Website is the CC HQ Website. CC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to ensure such quality. To this end, CC can facilitate hosting services for the Website with a third-party hosting platform.

:(f) Branding. The Project Website will be branded as “Creative Commons [Jurisdiction]”. Regional Websites will be branded as “Creative Commons [Region]”. The Website will clearly state that it is a collaboration between Creative Commons and Affiliate(s) and will include a list of all Affiliates with links to Affiliates’ websites. Affiliate may decide where on the Website to place this information.

:(g) Disclaimers. The Website will include at a minimum two disclaimers within the footer. Public Portals will also include the disclaimers, provided that if such disclaimers do not fit within the space constraints of the portal’s service then Affiliate will provide a reasonably accurate condensation of such disclaimers if possible. The disclaimers should be as follows:

::(i) The following agency disclaimer, in the primary language of the Website: “[Affiliate] and Creative Commons Corporation are independent and separate entities. Neither is a partner, agent or employee of the other. Neither party shall have the authority to make any statements, representations or commitments of any kind, or to take any action which shall be binding on the other party, except as may be authorized in writing.”; and

::(ii) A legal disclaimer in the primary language of the Website that clearly states that the Website does not provide legal advice and that using the website does not form any type of legal relationship between Affiliate and users. Public Portals will also include the disclaimers, provided that if such disclaimers do not fit within the space constraints of the portal’s service then Affiliate will provide a reasonably accurate condensation of such disclaimers if possible.

:(h) Policies. The Website will include a statement to the effect that “Except where otherwise noted [link to policies page], this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license.” In keeping with the legal disclaimer and policies page, Affiliate will ensure that nothing provided on the Website constitutes legal advice. Each Website will provide certain policies, as outlined in (i) or (ii) below, as applicable. The Website may not require users to adhere to any new or additional policies without CC’s written consent. Applicable policies are as follows:

::(i) For Websites hosted on CC servers or for which the domain is registered in CC’s name, the CC Policies will apply, and the Websites will include a link on each page to the Creative Commons policies page at http://creativecommons.org/policies and CC Terms of Use available at http://creativecommons.org/terms; and

::(ii) For Websites not hosted on CC servers and for which the domain is registered to someone other than CC, Affiliate will establish and maintain an appropriate privacy policy, terms of use and other policies that comply with applicable law and do not contradict anything in this Policy.

:(i) Content. Affiliate will ensure the Project Website and Public Portals contain proper content in the appropriate language(s) as chosen by Affiliate and/or English, and in line with the MOU and all applicable CC Policies. Proper content may include, but is not limited to, information about (i) Affiliate(s); (ii) the relevant jurisdiction, in a manner that promotes and encourages the adoption of Creative Commons Licenses and Legal Tools; (iii) a link to or translation of the content explaining Creative Commons’ philosophy, history and mission, available at http://creativecommons.org/about/history/; (iv) the local and international adoption of Creative Commons licenses, and (v) Creative Commons-related events.

:(j) Content Restrictions. Websites and Public Portals will only contain content that promotes the objectives of the collaboration between Affiliate and Creative Commons as described in the MOU. For the avoidance of doubt, this means Websites and Public Portals will not contain, link to or endorse any content that is defamatory, hateful or otherwise discriminatory, offensive or obscene, infringing, illegal or otherwise contrary to the law of the applicable jurisdiction.

:(k) Third-Party Contributions. Where Websites or a Public Portal allow third parties to contribute material, Affiliate will adopt a system of review that enables it to monitor this material for compliance with this Policy, the other CC Policies and the MOU, and will promptly remove material that does not comply.

:(l) Removal of Content. CC reserves the right to request the removal of any content that fails (in CC’s sole discretion) to conform to the requirements of this Policy, the MOU, or any other applicable CC Policies. Affiliate will respond promptly to such a request.

:(m) Infringing Material. If Affiliate receives a notice or becomes aware of any claim or information that a Website or a Public Portal contains content that violates the intellectual property rights of any person, and:

::(i) The content is on a Website that is hosted on a Creative Commons server or registered to Creative Commons, Affiliate agrees to send any such notice or claim immediately to dmca@creativecommons.org, with relevant information.

::(ii) The content is on a Website that is not hosted on a Creative Commons server and is registered to someone other than Creative Commons, Affiliate agrees to comply with all applicable laws governing its obligations and responsibilities with respect to such material.

::(iii) The content is on a Public Portal, Affiliate agrees to use reasonable efforts to remove the content.

:(n) Website License. Affiliate will ensure that to the greatest extent possible, all content on a Website or Public Portals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. Affiliate alone is responsible for ensuring that it has obtained all rights necessary to the content included on a Website and will use best efforts to enable it to be licensed under the CC Attribution license. All third-party content that appears on a Website that is not licensed under the CC BY license must be clearly marked with its copyright status and/or applicable license.

:(o) Content Syndication. Any content that appears on a Website or Public Portal may be syndicated on the websites of other CC project jurisdictions, Regional Websites and the CC HQ Website, unless expressly indicated otherwise by Affiliate in writing to CC or another Affiliate, as the case may be. Similarly, any and content on the CC HQ Website may be used on the Project Website or Regional Website, unless CC expressly indicates to the contrary.

:(p) Items that cannot be hosted. The following items will be hosted on the CC HQ Website only: License drafts, final Licenses, legal code, license deeds, License HTML, license buttons, Legal Tools (whether in human-readable, lawyer-readable or machine-readable formats, or any other formats whatsoever) and the license chooser engine. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that these items may not be hosted on a Project Website or Regional Website, but the Project Website or Regional Website may link to the items on the CC HQ Website.

:(q) Document Translation. If Affiliate or the Affiliate Team wish to translate documents from CC’s wiki (http://wiki.creativecommons.org), those documents must remain posted (as translated) on the wiki. Websites and Public Portals may link to the documents.

:(r) FAQs. The Project Website will include a link to CC’s “Frequently Asked Questions” page available at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions. The Project Website may also include a “Frequently Asked Questions” page with human readable information about CC topics, licensing and related legal issues customized to the Project’s jurisdiction and in the jurisdiction’s primary language(s). Regional Websites may include a link to the “Frequently Asked Questions” page.

:(s) Developers. Websites may contain a link to CC’s developers pages available at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Developers.

:(t) Commercial Activity. Websites will not contain third party advertisements, banner ads or promotions by Affiliate for any products or services other than those permitted under the Merchandising Policy or anticipated by the scope of the Project as described by the MOU. Creative Commons Counsel and Affiliate can discuss other fund-raising or commercial activity to be conducted on Websites or through Project Portals.

:(u) Third-Party Hosting. To the extent that CC facilitates hosting services for a Website and a third party hosting platform, CC is not in any way responsible for the provision of the hosting services and Affiliate will contract separately with the third party hosting platform for the provision of these services.

;III. Email Addresses and Lists. If Affiliate wishes to create email addresses or email lists for the Project, each email address or list must be operated in accordance with the following:

:(a) Email Addresses. Email addresses may correspond to the domain name for the Project, provided that:

::(i) The email addresses are used only to send communications in accordance with the MOU and CC Polices;

::(ii) All emails sent from the email addresses include a footer that makes clear to the recipient that the sender does not work for Creative Commons (e.g. [sender’s name], CC [jurisdiction] [Title]) and that clearly states that CC, Affiliate and the contents of the email do not provide legal advice; and,

::(iii) Affiliate agrees to provide email addresses only to persons who are working with Affiliate on the Project in accordance with the MOU, and to terminate a person’s email account when that person is no longer working with Affiliate on the Project.

:(b) Set-Up of Lists. If Affiliate would like have a mailing list for the jurisdiction, it must be done on Ibiblio (unless otherwise approved by CC) and Affiliate must send the administrators names, administrative password and any updates or changes to administrators or administrative passwords to CC when the list is set-up. To create a new mailing list, send an email to help@ibiblio.org with desired list name and the name of a chosen administrator.

:(c) List Membership. Affiliate will not arbitrarily exclude anyone from membership in the list, and Affiliate will use its discretion when deciding to terminate a person’s membership and then only for appropriate reasons, such as disruptiveness or inappropriate comments.

:(d) Moderating Lists. Affiliate will moderate any email lists for the Project fairly and will moderate discussions when necessary to ensure that all list members are allowed to participate fully.

;IV. All Internet Services. The following provisions are applicable to all Internet Services maintained or operated by Affiliate in relation to the Project:

:(a) Number of Internet Services. There may only be one central Project Website for each Jurisdiction and one Regional Website for a given region. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not preclude the use of supporting sites such as wikis. Public Portals should be limited in number to a reasonable amount. Additional Project Websites or Regional Websites will only be allowed if authorized in writing by Creative Commons.

:(b) Costs. Affiliate will be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with administering all Internet Services.

:(c) Delegation. Affiliate may grant administrative access for the Internet Services to a reasonable number of people for the purpose of maintaining the Internet Services in accordance with this Policy and the MOU. Affiliate will use its best judgment in deciding who will be allowed administrative access to the Internet Services. Affiliate will at all times remain ultimately responsible for ensuring that all Internet Services comply with this Policy, the MOU, and other CC Policies. Affiliate will terminate access granted to others if instructed to do so by Creative Commons. For the avoidance of doubt, CC will only instruct Affiliate to terminate another’s administrative access privileges if CC decides, in its sole discretion, that the access privilege is not being used in accordance with this Policy and the MOU.

:(d) Conduct. Affiliate, the Affiliate Team (as defined in the MOU) and others authorized as administrators of a Project Website or Regional Website in accordance with this Policy will work together with the relevant jurisdiction community, the CC Affiliate Network (as defined in the MOU), and Creative Commons, adhering to a high standard of civility, fairness, ethics and general conduct with each other. Affiliate and the Affiliate Team will engage in consensus-based decision-making on matters relating to administration of the Internet Services, using reasonable efforts to maintain, improve and operate the Internet Services for the purposes contemplated in furtherance of CC’s mission. Everyone with administrative access to an Internet Service registered to Creative Commons or hosted on CC’s servers agrees to comply with the Creative Commons Terms of Use available at http://creativecommons.org/terms.

:(e) Transfer of Internet Services. If Affiliate discontinues its official relationship with Creative Commons, habitually fails to adhere to this Policy, or if CC reasonably determines that a transfer is in the best interests of the maintenance and control of the domain name and the Marks, Affiliate agrees that CC may direct Affiliate to transfer to Creative Commons or a third party (and Affiliate will cooperate with CC in doing so):

::(i) Any domain name registered to someone other than CC;

::(ii) The entire Website, intact (to the extent not otherwise prohibited by third-party license terms); and

::(iii) Administrative access to any Public Portal, including changing all login ids and passwords as directed by Creative Commons.

Case Studies/GlaxoSmithKline

2012-10-11T17:36:05Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{Case Study
|Description=GlaxoSmithKline is a major pharmaceutical company that has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.
|Mainurl=http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chemblntd/#tcams_dataset
|Author=ChEMBL-NTD, GlaxoSmithKline
|User_Status=Curator, Creator
|Tag=GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, malaria, disease
|License short name=GNU GPL
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, MovingImage, InteractiveResource, Other, Geodata, Data
|Country=United Kingdom
|Quote=Providing access to this level of information sees GSK set what I would hope to be a new trend that could revolutionise the urgent search for new medicines to tackle malaria. By sharing data, we start to build up a public database of knowledge that should be as powerful as the human genome databases.
|Quote_Attribution=Timothy Wells, Chief Scientific Officer of the Medicines for Malaria Venture (http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/access/rnd-neglected-tropical-diseases.htm)
|Image_Header=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/04/Logo-gsk.gif
|Image_attribution=(c) GSK
|Image_license=http://www.gsk.com/terms.htm
|importance=High
|quality=B-Class
|License_short_name=CC0
}}
== Overview ==
One of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria. The data set is called Tres Cantos Antimalarial (TCAMS), and is available from the ChEMBL-NTD database, "a repository for Open Access primary screening and medicinal chemistry data directed at neglected diseases - endemic tropical diseases of the developing regions of the Africa, Asia, and the Americas."

== License Usage ==

GlaxoSmithKline has surrendered all copyright in its malaria data set under the CC0 public domain dedication.

== Motivations ==
From GSK's [http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/downloads/GSK-CR-2009-full.pdf 2009 report]:

<blockquote>"By making this information publicly available, GSK hopes that many other scientists will review this information and analyse the data faster than we could on our own. Hopefully, this will lead to additional research that could help drive the discovery of new medicines. We would also encourage other groups, including academics and pharmaceutical companies, to make their own compounds and related information publicly available.

 This is essentially an example of ‘open source’ being applied to drug discovery. We know that data increases in value when connected with other data and that the more eyes looking at a [http://jogos-de-princesas.org jogos de princesas] problem, the more potential solutions may arise."</blockquote>

Research and development (R&D) for diseases prevalent in the developing world are costly and time-consuming and carry less return on investment than R&D for diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, which have a market in the developed world. Since malaria is a disease that primarily affects the developing world, GSK has released malarial data in order to speed the process of R&D, while providing resources that nonprofits and academic institutions don't necessarily have wide access to, such as advanced technologies, facilities for medicinal drug discovery, and manufacturing and distribution expertise. For more information, see GSK's 2009 report on

== Media ==
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/news.2010.20.html Nature - GlaxoSmithKline goes public with malaria data]
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/20/glaxo-malaria-drugs-public-domain The Guardian - Glaxo offers free access to potential malaria cures]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/malaria.htm GSK's commitment to fighting Malaria]
 
[http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2010/2010_pressrelease_10009.htm press release]

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T21:32:35Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' The CC 1.0 license suite included an explicit warrant by the licensor. The 2.0, 2.1, 2.5 and 3.0 versions of the suit all expressly disclaimed any warranties. This decision was made after a long and detailed debate. The reason for this shift is explained nicely in this [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 blog post.] We are exploring options related to the disclaimer of warranties, including leaving things as they were in 3.0, going back to the 1.0 licensor warranties and other middle-group options between the two.
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

===Considerations===

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

====Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

====Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

===Opportunities outside the licenses===

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

=== Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Disclaimer Proposal No. 1:'''''
* Pros:
* Cons:

''Please add other Disclaimer proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T21:32:22Z

Aurelia Schultz:

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T21:31:56Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' The CC 1.0 license suite included an explicit warrant by the licensor. The 2.0, 2.1, 2.5 and 3.0 versions of the suit all expressly disclaimed any warranties. This decision was made after a long and detailed debate. The reason for this shift is explained nicely in this [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 blog post.] We are exploring options related to the disclaimer of warranties, including leaving things as they were in 3.0, going back to the 1.0 licensor warranties and other middle-group options between the two.
</div>

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

===Considerations===

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

====Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

====Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

===Opportunities outside the licenses===

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

=== Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Disclaimer Proposal No. 1:'''''
* Pros:
* Cons:

''Please add other Disclaimer proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T21:29:52Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' The CC 1.0 license suite included an explicit warrant by the licensor. The 2.0, 2.1, 2.5 and 3.0 versions of the suit all expressly disclaimed any warranties. The reason for this shift is explained nicely in this [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 blog post.]
</div>

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

===Considerations===

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

====Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

====Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

===Opportunities outside the licenses===

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

=== Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Disclaimer Proposal No. 1:'''''
* Pros:
* Cons:

''Please add other Disclaimer proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T21:20:45Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

===Considerations===

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

====Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

====Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

===Opportunities outside the licenses===

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

=== Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Disclaimer Proposal No. 1:'''''
* Pros:
* Cons:

''Please add other Disclaimer proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T21:20:15Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

===Considerations===

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

====Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

====Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

===Opportunities outside the licenses===

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

=== Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Disclaimer Proposal No. 1:'''''

''Please add other Disclaimer proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T20:51:41Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

===Considerations===

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

====Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

====Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings====

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

===Opportunities outside the licenses===

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T20:32:19Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==
{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
|}

==Considerations==

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

===Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings===

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

===Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings===

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

==Opportunities outside the licenses==

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T20:29:59Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==
{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:'' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.}}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.|}

==Considerations==

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

===Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings===

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

===Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings===

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

==Opportunities outside the licenses==

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.

4.0/Attribution and marking

2012-10-09T18:42:40Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' This page aggregates discussion topics involving attribution and marking requirements, as the two are closely related and have never been clearly or uniformly differentiated. Attribution has been a standard feature of all CC licenses since the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 version 2.0 suite]. Currently, attribution requirements are primarily contained in Section 4 of the 3.0 licenses. Marking requirements are interspersed throughout the license, including (in version 3.0) in Section 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the licenses permitting adaptations, and in Section 4(a) of the two ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND).
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' In light of our goal to make CC licenses simpler and more user-friendly, we have considerably revamped the manner in which the attribution and marking requirements are conveyed in the license. Most importantly, we have consolidated all of the attribution and marking requirements into one section of the license, outlined them in list form and have labeled that section accordingly. To increase license compliance, we have provided that all attribution requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner depending on the means and medium used. Last, we have added a shortcut, which allows licensees to include the URI associated with the licensed work (or a hyperlink) to satisfy several of the attribution requirements. We look forward to your input on these changes and others, including other suggestions for adjusting this provision to facilitate large collaborations such as Wikipedia. Our goal is to best ensure a proper balance between the author’s attribution rights and the need for flexibility given that any license violation results in automatic termination (at least as currently drafted). See also the discussion regarding relaxing the [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|termination provision]].

Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_attribution_in_4.0|attribution]] and [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_marking_requirements_in_4.0|marking]] proposal below. }}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' We continue our effort to make attribution and marking easy for licensees without undue burden (thus promoting greater compliance), while at the same time respecting the desire of licensors to have relevant information they provide included when the work is further shared. We have retained nearly all of the requirements from the first draft with a few variations intended for clarity and ease of application.

See this attribution and marking [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/5/5f/Attribution_comparision_(4-1.0d2_final_for_31_July).pdf comparison chart] to easily view differences between 3.0, 4.0d1 and 4.0d2.

One change is that the URI requirement is now simpler. The licensee must provide the URI or hyperlink to the source where the work can be accessed. Another change relates to the requirement to retain notices of disclaimers or warranties supplied by licensor. The difference in draft 2 is that licensees must retain any such notices when supplied by the licensor, rather than only those referring to the CC license. This change also supports a corresponding addition found in Section 6(b), which allows licensors to supplement the license to disclaim warranties or limit liabilities differently than the license does in Section 4, or to offer warranties. We have also expanded the URI shortcut, so that licensees may satisfy some or all of the requirements by linking to a particular webpage containing some or all of the necessary information.

We have eliminated the requirement to provide the title of the work and retain copyright notices, though ideally licensees will provide both when supplied by the licensor. In this spirit, we specifically encourage their retention by explicitly permitting licensees to use those notices to comply with any or all attribution requirements when they contain any or all of the required information. We hope this encourages licensors to consolidate attribution and marking information in a central location. Finally, in order to support many communities who have well-accepted practices for how attribution is given (e.g., in scientific and scholarly communities), we now make clear that attribution and marking requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the means, medium and context (the term “context” being new) in which the work is shared.

Finally, we recognize that these revisions may ease the problem of attribution stacking, but that the stacking problem and the challenges associated with attribution in the context of text-mining persist. We will be looking at these two problems more concertedly in the d2 discussion period.
|}

== Attribution ==

The current 3.0 licenses require users of a work to implement the following in any reasonable manner: <ref> See the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users#Marking_on_Your_Site Marking Page] for further information.</ref>

* keep copyright notices intact; and
* reasonable to the medium or means used by the licensee,
** provide the name the original author (or her pseudonym, or other attribution party, when provided);
** provide the title of the work if supplied;
** include the URI associated with the work (if it refers to the copyright notice or licensing information); and
** where an adaptation is created (when permitted by the license), include a credit stating that the work has been used in the adaptation <ref>Per Section 4(b) of the license, in the case of an adaptation or collection, where a credit for all contributing authors appears, the credit required must be at least as prominent as the credits for other contributing authors.</ref>

All 3.0 licenses allow licensors to request removal of the credit when their works are reproduced in a collection, as well as when their works are adapted (where permitted by the licenses). Specifically, all six version 3.0 licenses provide: <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses. </ref>

:: ''If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.''

:: And in BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA, and BY-NC, additionally:

:: ''If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.'' <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>

The attribution requirement is reflected on the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC deeds] as:

:: ''Attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).''

A few [[Case_Law|legal decisions]] have successfully enforced the attribution requirement.

The attribution requirements have drawn some criticism:
# General difficulty understanding what is required on the part of licensees, in part due to the “reasonable to the medium or means” language but also because the language is difficult to parse.
# Are too onerous and do not align with community practices.
# The requirements insufficiently anticipate or account for analog distributions and performances, making it challenging to comply (same criticism is equally applicable to other marking requirements, below).
# Absence of a mechanism for requesting or permitting removal of a credit for reproductions of an unmodified work when not reproduced as part of a collection.<ref>Although, a licensor may always enter into a separate agreement with licensees to have attribution waived.</ref>

'''Note: For criticisms, issues and proposals relating to attribution requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for attribution in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''BY Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Consolidate the attribution requirements into a single location within the licenses (e.g., Section 4) and simplify language, including all other marking requirements (see below), such as providing the URI for the license.'''
* Pros: Users of licensed works would understand requirements more easily, which fosters reuse.
* Cons: Title is needed to help with tracking.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Consolidated, reorganized and simplified for greater understandability and to facilitate compliance.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Introduce further flexibility into the requirements, to bring them closer into alignment with community practices.'''
* Pros: This would reduce unintentional violations of the licenses, which is especially important because a violation of the license results in automatic termination.
* Cons:
* Other comments: For example, one [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006604.html proposal] from license-discuss is to remove the provision requiring that a credit for an adaptation or collection must be as prominent as the other contributing authors. This requirement might be excessive in some circumstances.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' To increase license compliance, attempted to introduce more flexibility by providing that all requirements may be implemented in a reasonable manner.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand the existing mechanism for requesting removal of the attribution credit so licensors can request removal for any reuse.'''
* Pros: There may be situations where licensors would prefer not to be associated with a particular website, and this would enable them to avoid association by removing attribution credit.
* Cons: Allows people to require removal of author's name even where credit is accurate and factual.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change. Note that this revision may also have relevance where the moral right of withdrawal exists, arguably giving the licensor a functional equivalent when using a perpetual, irrevocable public license.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Create a mechanism in the license allowing licensors to waive attribution completely.'''
* Pros: Potentially useful for keeping alive CC BY-SA but waiving BY aspect without needing a separate and incompatible copyleft (CC SA, which existed and has been deprecated for some time)
* Cons: Reduces need for and potential adoption of CC0.
* Other comments: Couldn't a licensor waive attribution requirements outside of the license with an additional statement and without needing to add anything to the legalcode?
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in this draft, although draft does permit licensors to seek removal of attribution elements for any reuse, including reuse in unmodified form. May be possible to address as technical solution rather than within legal code.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Relax the requirement to "keep intact" copyright notice, notice referring to the license, and notice referring to disclaimers of warranty; and allow translation, contextualization, and possibly other modification of those notices.'''
* Pros: Reduces the risk for users to overlook copyright notice, notice referring to the license, or notice referring to disclaimers of warranty. This risk is higher in at least 2 situations: 1) When those notices are written in languages that a user do not understand well; and 2) When the work under a CC license is long or complex. For example, a notice referring to disclaimers of warranty might not be easily detectable in a given photo gallery web site with multiple pages with many different sections. (And you are required to keep intact "all" such notices.)
** Allowing contextualization of the notices would reduce the risk of bearing non-sensical or even ineffective notices. For example, if you use a text from web page to create a book, to "keep intact" a notice saying "content of this web page is under CC-BY 3.0 Unported" does not make good sense for readers of a book. (And in practice, many license notices are written in this kind of context-specific way.)
** In some cases, to "keep intact" a notice is impossible. For example, a notice may be given as an audio, as a part of radio program. A user cannot "keep intact" the audio notice if he wants to use the content of the audio for a photo or a book. More importantly, notice seems to be given visually in many cases, by using a CC license logo. To keep intact a logo may be challenge if a user wants to create a non-visual work, or use the work in an environment where only text-data is usable.
** In theory, this requirement to keep intact "all" notices could be used to intentionally block further reuse even when license and technology would allow reuse. Imagine a user of a licensed CC-BY-SA work adds a few hundred notices to an Adaptation. Those who wishes to use such work would find it very difficult to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" such notices. Allowing more flexible attribution and marking would prevent such effort. Another theoretical example would be to embed notices in easy-to-overlook places within a movie, a video game, or a long book. A user may need to first find all the notices to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" notices.
** Note also that reuse (creation of adaptations/ derivatives) under BY-SA licenses would end up accumulating license notices. "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic" may appear "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 US." That would look like the work is dual-licensed, while it is not. It is simply that an original work was under 2.0, and a derivative is under 3.0.
** As far as I can tell, in practice, very few people comply with (or even understand) this requirement, so relaxing it would have the effect of bringing the license into alignment with common usage. If common usage has been ignorning, at least to some extent, this requirement for the past 5 or 6 years, then that is probably a pretty good argument against the con that unwanted exploitation might arise, as I'm not aware of any court battles over this point.
* Cons: Like many relaxation of requirements, it could serve as an opening for unwanted exploitation.
* Other comments: I think there is some room for interpretation what exactly is to "keep intact."
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated some changes in the spirit of this proposal. See the 3.0/4.0 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated some changes in this spirit by suggesting keeping intact existing copyright notices as a a way to comply with the other attribution requirements. See the d1/d2 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.

'''''BY Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Make clearer what is meant by "credit" by stopping the use of the word in two different ways.''' - "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation" is one place where the word appears, and "remove ... any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested" is another place where the same word is used but to mean a wider set of information.
* Pros: Increase the ease of complying the license terms, and reduce unintended failure to comply with the requirements.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by avoiding use of the term ''credit'' in this draft.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Explicitly allow attribution via a provision of a URI, when a web page with that URI provides attribution'''
* Pros: This would solve the problem sometimes referred to as attribution stack-up - when there are too many authors to attribute to, that would restrict the scope of reuse. Allowing the use of a web page to provide attribution, and requiring just a display of its URL for attribution would make reuse possible in those cases. A typical example - copying some text from Wikipedia's heavily edited article to a blog. If you need to copy the whole list of the authors, it could be difficult and time-consuming. If you could simply show a URL of the page on Wikipedia where you can see a list of people edited the page, that would be a lot easier and quicker.
* Cons: Providing only a URI will result in works winding up as ARR in the future when the page to which that URI is directed is dead.([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-October/007233.html license discuss list ])
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, but we have retained requirement that the licensee must provide the URI only if it references copyright notice or licensing information. Further input needed, including suggestions for other alternative means for allowing attribution.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Consider giving the right to request credit removal to actual people receiving credits.''' - The current license allows only licensor to make such a request. Note that a CC licensed work may not carry information about licensor's name or contact at all. Credits may tell licensee about authors and other entities the credits are given to. When a CC-BY-SA work is adapted a few times by a few different parties, a licensee may not be able to tell who the licensors are.
* Pros: When removal request has to come from a licensor, there are two consequences: 1) A licensee cannot tell a removal request coming from authentic licensor from fake one, and 2) authors and other entities receiving credits may or may not necessarily know how to contact a licensor when they want to request a removal.
* Cons: A complication could still arise if this proposal is implemented because authentification of authors and other entities receiving credits are not easy, either. It is perhaps easier than telling who is a licensor for a given set of credit.
* Other comments: In general, it is not easy to understand the distinction between an author and a licensor.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not included. Granting rights to third parties who are not a party to the license presents challenges on multiple levels.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Consider limiting the "keep intact" and other crediting & marking obligations to only those pieces of information that are clearly present and easily identifiable. Make a licensee's failure to comply with properly crediting not a trigger for terminating the license.''' - For example, it is often difficult to tell if a URI accompanying a work is "specified" by the licensor. The same can be said even about the name of an author, when there are more than one name displayed for the same account. Flickr accounts may have an account name and a name of a person. It may be difficult to tell if a file name is meant to be a title for a photo or the photo is untitled. Many blog posts are accompanied by poster's account names, separate from their full names (typically linked from those nick names), which is different from name of the organization (typically found at the copyright notice) the blog is for. Which name is "supplied" as the name of the Original Author in this case?
* Pros: Increased ease of use of licensed works.
* Cons: In theory, unwanted crediting, or omission thereof may increase.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by specifying that only information supplied (such as name and title) must be provided and subjecting all requirements to reasonableness standard. See also discussion regarding [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|Relaxation of Termination Provision]].
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Further modified to no longer require title.

'''''BY Proposal No.10:''''' '''Consider increasing machine-readability of credits and marks.'''
* Pros: If a simple script can identify all or most of the information needed for giving a credit, it would improve license compliance for a wider range of works and licensees.
* Cons: If done in legalcode(?) this could result in massive incompliance with licenses, as machine-readability is hard to get right
* Other comments: It seems like this should be done regardless, but in external tooling work by the tech team and the rest of the CC-using ecosystem?
** It's not clear what this proposal means to say. For example, the HTML provided by the CC license chooser does contain attribution metadata, as long as the copyright holder provided that information when the filled out the chooser form. As far as downstream reuse, this proposal would imply that reusers would need to likely manually enter that metadata, which isn't going to happen. At the moment, the main way in which this attribution metadata is revealed to reusers is if they follow the license mark to the license deed, in which case attribution HTML will be provided on the deed, which itself contains metadata. However, not everyone will click through to the deed.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in draft because this is a technical rather than legal proposal.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 11:''''' '''Clarify the language about URI specified by the licensor''' - currently it says, in part, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work," and what it means seems to be "as long as resource identified by such URI includes the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work."
* Pros: In a Web environment, many people may like to be attributed via some URL, such as a personal site or web page. Limiting the requirement of attributing wih a URL to only when the URL contains copyright information probably isn't what most people have in mind.
** Allowing a copyright holder to require attribution to a URL (any URL, regardless of what is behind it), may make it easier for downstream reusers to actually know who the copyright holder is, and how to contact them for additional permissions. For example, if I find an image on some web site and all the data I have is some user name and the CC license mark, then it may be nigh impossible to contact the copyright holder. On the other hand, if a licensor can require attribution to some certain URL, then finding that person suddenly becomes much more feasible.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 12:''''' '''Remove provision that allows licensors to request removal of attribution or amend it to cover only requests for removal of misleading or inaccurate attribution.'''
* Pros: This provision arguably does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines because it requires removal of attribution upon request, even where attribution is accurate and not misleading.
* Cons: The provision, in its 3.0 form, reassures licensors who are concerned their reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they license under Creative Commons.
* Other comments: More information about this proposal is included in this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html email thread] and this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html email thread] from license-discuss.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not incorporated. The purpose of this clause is to allow those receiving credit to distance themselves from reuses they may find objectionable. This encourages use of public licenses by those wishing to share but who are concerned about being associated with those uses. In all events, in this draft as in 3.0, removal is required only when reasonably practical.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 13:''''' '''Change "reasonable manner" qualifier in attribution requirements to "any reasonably prominent manner" or "a reasonable manner consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary attribution for the medium or means You are using.'''
* Pros: Helps ensure that attribution is made as prominent as is reasonably possible.
* Cons: May not add much because "reasonable" inherently means reasonably prominent.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated to some extent by including the concept of "context."

'''''BY Proposal No. 14:''''' '''Resolve the source of conflict between "in the manner designated by Licensor" (3.(a)(1)(A)) and "in any reasonable manner" (3.(a)(3)) in the public draft 2.''' One way is to add a language to 3.(a)(3) "For the avoidance of doubt, if you cannot strictly give attribution in the manner designated by the Licensor, it is okay as long as your manner of giving attribution is reasonable based on the medium, means and context in which the Work or Adaptation is used." A Licensor may well designate that the author should be attributed on the opening page of any Adaptation in color, with the author's name hyperlinked to a certain web page.
* Pros: Resolve a (seeming) source of conflict that may stifle reuse of licensed works.
* Cons: Additional words mean a lay person has to spend additional unpleasant time to read the license.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.2 publication.

''Please add other BY proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Marking requirements ==
Beyond the marking requirements related to attribution described above, the CC licenses contain additional requirements for properly marking a CC-licensed work:

* in those licenses that permit adaptations (BY, BY-NC, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA), if an adaptation is made (including any translation in any medium), the licensee must take reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work"; <ref> See Section 3(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>
* for every copy of the work distributed or publicly performed, the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(a) of the licenses.</ref>
** include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the license;
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license and to the disclaimer of warranties;
* for every adaptation of the work that is distributed or publicly performed (where adaptations are permitted), the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations</ref>:
** include a copy of, or the URI for, the license (for the original work); <ref> The international (unported) BY-SA and BY-NC-SA incorrectly refer to "Applicable License" in Section 4(b). This is a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata#Incorrect_reference_to_.22the_Applicable_License.22 known error].</ref>
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license (for the original work) and to the disclaimer of warranties.

These marking requirements have attracted some criticism:
# For adaptations, lack of clarity or uniformity as to placement of the mark or label indicating that changes were made to the original work.
# Absence of flexibility (such as through a reasonableness requirement) for inclusion of the URI.

'''Note: For proposals relating to marking requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for marking requirements in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Marking Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Making the inclusion of the URI subject to a "reasonable to the medium or means" requirement'''
* Pros
* Cons
* Other comments
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, though only required if the URI references a resource containing attribution or licensing information.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''Marking Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Require description of changes made to original work in adaptations.'''
* Pros: Makes it easier to identify the original work within an adaptation
* Cons: Requires a lot of extra text that could get very detailed; increases burden on reusers
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposal made after d.1 published.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposal made after d.2 published.

''Please add other marking proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0==

In draft 1 of v.4, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations.

Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor:
*Name of the author
*Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution
*Title of the work
*Copyright notice
*URI associated with the work
*URI associated with the CC license
*Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license

(1) Is there any other information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical.
*'''Comments:'''
*Is it necessary to require attribution? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Can licensors select their desired attribution elements in the Chooser, rather than mandating a specific set? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Should there be an element for related data sets? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*"Attribution Parties" should be dropped entirely. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**But: some works made possible/assisted by parties who are not the author; there should be space to credit them. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Requiring removal of attribution may not be in line with DFSG. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html]
**Benefit does not exceed cost if this is true, unless required by moral rights (which should be clarified). [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Publish a standard for correct attribution, but allow experimentation in community-developed standards, which licensors may follow but are not bound to. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*There are going to be scaling issues with requiring licensees to provide the name of the author - this could go all GFDL very quickly, with big bulky booklets or attribution pages required for the smallest amount of derivation. In particular, I'm worried about places like Wikipedia - you get articles with hundreds or thousands or ''tens'' of thousands of unique contributors. Listing all of them seems like the sort of overkill that undermined the GFDL, and is likely to cause implementation problems for licensors - if you come up to well-trafficked wikis and tell them that, in order to use 4.0 and not seriously vex anyone using their content, they're going to have to provide a method of getting an incredibly barebones list of all contributors to a specific page that people can copy and paste...that could take time and effort that are better spent on other things. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*An additional concern is that "name of the author" is unnecessarily vague; I'd change it to "the author's chosen name or pseudonym" (which is basically how it works in the UK anyway - the author gets to choose). My issue is that when I see "name of the author", I think "real name", and again, I don't think this is likely to scale or apply to online works nicely. It reads as if contributors will have to out themselves to use the licenses without messing with licensees, and while I know this isn't what's meant, some clarity would be helpful. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(2) All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem?
*'''Comments:'''

*For many elements, licensees don't know how to comply and may be confused by leaving it open-ended; we should provide guidance and/or verbatim statements for unfamiliar elements such as "copyright notice". [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Many reusers are unfamiliar with the "URI" acronym and need explanation, examples, or replacement with amore common term. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Amount of flexibility OK, but if adjusted should be in the direction of more flexibility. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(3) If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well?
*'''Comments:'''
*It is probably better to allow not just "a URI" but "one or more URIs." For example, it is common for MediaWiki-based Wikis (including this CC Wiki) to have multiple pages that list contributors. Such list of contributors for this page could be viewed by clicking "History" near the top of the page. And it is currently spanning two pages, having two different URIs.
**Given that URL shortener is currently rather popular, it is better to allow "a resource referenced by the URI that is contained in the resource referenced by the URI" to also benefit from this clause. The current language may be interpreted that the resource containing (i)-(iii) above should be at the URI specified, as opposed to URI redirected from the URI specified.
**Better yet, it should perhaps be allowed to use a URI for attribution to point to the resource referred to by that URI and other resources easily identifiable from that resource.
*Allow a licensee to create a resource (such as a web page listing all attribution information), and use its URI, when that resource contains (i)-(iii).
*In some cases, the resource at a URI contains only (i) and not (ii) and (iii). I think it is okay still to allow replacing the list of names of authors with a URI and supply (ii) and (iii) separately.
*Copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, etc., should be readable even offline, so URI alone is insufficient. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(4) Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license.
*'''Comments:'''
*The complication could come from four sources that I can imagine: a) language and font that is not readily available for medium or means licensee wants to use; b) visual, audio, text, and other media-specific requirements that does not fit with licensee's medium or means; c) how a licensee (or even his lawyer) can know that some specific attribution is required when he is not fluent in the language, and/ or the work is voluminous; d) one may not know if an attribution element provided by a performer (in a video or audio work, say) or author, means "licensor" "supplied" that element for attribution, because the licensor's relation with the author /performer is not necessarily known to the potential licensees. (Is licensor the same person or not? is a question not necessarily easy to answer, for example.)
**See also, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of the difficulties surrounding attribution compliance.
**These complications could result in failure to comply, and/ or decision not to use the work because of the high cost of compliance/ risk of failing to comply. But this is not really limited to "specific attribution requirements" discussed here.
**One possible way to deal with this (or a part of this) issue is to tolerate failure to attribute when the attribution elements are supplied in a manner neither prominent, conventional, nor consolidated with other element that is supplied in a prominent or conventional manner.
**A question arises when one uses URI (i.e. an external resource) to give attribution. Is

*No, compliance with attribution is already difficult enough. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**Agreed with difficulty, and we don't want to make it harder to distinguish libre/non-libre content. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]

*Nonstandard requirements increase transaction costs. Community standards for additional requirements could enable automation to reduce these costs. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(5) Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not?
*'''Comments:'''
*Pro: It is in general difficult to determine what is "supplied" by "licensor." It is not necessarily easy to determine what is title, author's name, notice referring to the license, etc. (See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of these difficulties.)
*Con: Citation may not enable the recipient of the work to find the original. Current level of requirement allow licensors to make sure that a recipient, if interested, can reach the original, and its author/ licensor.
*Perhaps prominently and explicitly placed specific attribution requirements should be followed to the extent reasonably practicable with the medium or means to the licensee, but in other cases the attribution could be left to flexible interpretation of the licensee.

*Yes, it gives more freedoms to users & encourages growth of free content community. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*No, insufficient for many licensors, especially some OER projects. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*Enable licensors to require a standard for attribution, let licensors figure out appropriate standard? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue here.''
* ePSIplatform guest blog post dated February 11th, 2011: "[http://epsiplatform.eu/content/cc-tools-and-psi-supporting-attribution-protecting-reputation-and-preserving-integrity CC tools and PSI: Supporting attribution, protecting reputation, and preserving integrity]"
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licenses: Users]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Attribution and marking

2012-10-09T18:41:01Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' This page aggregates discussion topics involving attribution and marking requirements, as the two are closely related and have never been clearly or uniformly differentiated. Attribution has been a standard feature of all CC licenses since the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 version 2.0 suite]. Currently, attribution requirements are primarily contained in Section 4 of the 3.0 licenses. Marking requirements are interspersed throughout the license, including (in version 3.0) in Section 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the licenses permitting adaptations, and in Section 4(a) of the two ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND).
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' In light of our goal to make CC licenses simpler and more user-friendly, we have considerably revamped the manner in which the attribution and marking requirements are conveyed in the license. Most importantly, we have consolidated all of the attribution and marking requirements into one section of the license, outlined them in list form and have labeled that section accordingly. To increase license compliance, we have provided that all attribution requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner depending on the means and medium used. Last, we have added a shortcut, which allows licensees to include the URI associated with the licensed work (or a hyperlink) to satisfy several of the attribution requirements. We look forward to your input on these changes and others, including other suggestions for adjusting this provision to facilitate large collaborations such as Wikipedia. Our goal is to best ensure a proper balance between the author’s attribution rights and the need for flexibility given that any license violation results in automatic termination (at least as currently drafted). See also the discussion regarding relaxing the [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|termination provision]].

Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_attribution_in_4.0|attribution]] and [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_marking_requirements_in_4.0|marking]] proposal below. }}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' We continue our effort to make attribution and marking easy for licensees without undue burden (thus promoting greater compliance), while at the same time respecting the desire of licensors to have relevant information they provide included when the work is further shared. We have retained nearly all of the requirements from the first draft with a few variations intended for clarity and ease of application.

See this attribution and marking [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/5/5f/Attribution_comparision_(4-1.0d2_final_for_31_July).pdf comparison chart] to easily view differences between 3.0, 4.0d1 and 4.0d2.

One change is that the URI requirement is now simpler. The licensee must provide the URI or hyperlink to the source where the work can be accessed. Another change relates to the requirement to retain notices of disclaimers or warranties supplied by licensor. The difference in draft 2 is that licensees must retain any such notices when supplied by the licensor, rather than only those referring to the CC license. This change also supports a corresponding addition found in Section 6(b), which allows licensors to supplement the license to disclaim warranties or limit liabilities differently than the license does in Section 4, or to offer warranties. We have also expanded the URI shortcut, so that licensees may satisfy some or all of the requirements by linking to a particular webpage containing some or all of the necessary information.

We have eliminated the requirement to provide the title of the work and retain copyright notices, though ideally licensees will provide both when supplied by the licensor. In this spirit, we specifically encourage their retention by explicitly permitting licensees to use those notices to comply with any or all attribution requirements when they contain any or all of the required information. We hope this encourages licensors to consolidate attribution and marking information in a central location. Finally, in order to support many communities who have well-accepted practices for how attribution is given (e.g., in scientific and scholarly communities), we now make clear that attribution and marking requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the means, medium and context (the term “context” being new) in which the work is shared.

Finally, we recognize that these revisions may ease the problem of attribution stacking, but that the stacking problem and the challenges associated with attribution in the context of text-mining persist. We will be looking at these two problems more concertedly in the d2 discussion period.
|}

== Attribution ==

The current 3.0 licenses require users of a work to implement the following in any reasonable manner: <ref> See the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users#Marking_on_Your_Site Marking Page] for further information.</ref>

* keep copyright notices intact; and
* reasonable to the medium or means used by the licensee,
** provide the name the original author (or her pseudonym, or other attribution party, when provided);
** provide the title of the work if supplied;
** include the URI associated with the work (if it refers to the copyright notice or licensing information); and
** where an adaptation is created (when permitted by the license), include a credit stating that the work has been used in the adaptation <ref>Per Section 4(b) of the license, in the case of an adaptation or collection, where a credit for all contributing authors appears, the credit required must be at least as prominent as the credits for other contributing authors.</ref>

All 3.0 licenses allow licensors to request removal of the credit when their works are reproduced in a collection, as well as when their works are adapted (where permitted by the licenses). Specifically, all six version 3.0 licenses provide: <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses. </ref>

:: ''If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.''

:: And in BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA, and BY-NC, additionally:

:: ''If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.'' <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>

The attribution requirement is reflected on the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC deeds] as:

:: ''Attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).''

A few [[Case_Law|legal decisions]] have successfully enforced the attribution requirement.

The attribution requirements have drawn some criticism:
# General difficulty understanding what is required on the part of licensees, in part due to the “reasonable to the medium or means” language but also because the language is difficult to parse.
# Are too onerous and do not align with community practices.
# The requirements insufficiently anticipate or account for analog distributions and performances, making it challenging to comply (same criticism is equally applicable to other marking requirements, below).
# Absence of a mechanism for requesting or permitting removal of a credit for reproductions of an unmodified work when not reproduced as part of a collection.<ref>Although, a licensor may always enter into a separate agreement with licensees to have attribution waived.</ref>

'''Note: For criticisms, issues and proposals relating to attribution requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for attribution in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''BY Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Consolidate the attribution requirements into a single location within the licenses (e.g., Section 4) and simplify language, including all other marking requirements (see below), such as providing the URI for the license.'''
* Pros: Users of licensed works would understand requirements more easily, which fosters reuse.
* Cons: Providing only a URI will result in works winding up as ARR in the future when the page to which that URI is directed is dead.([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-October/007233.html license discuss list ])
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Consolidated, reorganized and simplified for greater understandability and to facilitate compliance.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Introduce further flexibility into the requirements, to bring them closer into alignment with community practices.'''
* Pros: This would reduce unintentional violations of the licenses, which is especially important because a violation of the license results in automatic termination.
* Cons:
* Other comments: For example, one [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006604.html proposal] from license-discuss is to remove the provision requiring that a credit for an adaptation or collection must be as prominent as the other contributing authors. This requirement might be excessive in some circumstances.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' To increase license compliance, attempted to introduce more flexibility by providing that all requirements may be implemented in a reasonable manner.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand the existing mechanism for requesting removal of the attribution credit so licensors can request removal for any reuse.'''
* Pros: There may be situations where licensors would prefer not to be associated with a particular website, and this would enable them to avoid association by removing attribution credit.
* Cons: Allows people to require removal of author's name even where credit is accurate and factual.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change. Note that this revision may also have relevance where the moral right of withdrawal exists, arguably giving the licensor a functional equivalent when using a perpetual, irrevocable public license.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Create a mechanism in the license allowing licensors to waive attribution completely.'''
* Pros: Potentially useful for keeping alive CC BY-SA but waiving BY aspect without needing a separate and incompatible copyleft (CC SA, which existed and has been deprecated for some time)
* Cons: Reduces need for and potential adoption of CC0.
* Other comments: Couldn't a licensor waive attribution requirements outside of the license with an additional statement and without needing to add anything to the legalcode?
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in this draft, although draft does permit licensors to seek removal of attribution elements for any reuse, including reuse in unmodified form. May be possible to address as technical solution rather than within legal code.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Relax the requirement to "keep intact" copyright notice, notice referring to the license, and notice referring to disclaimers of warranty; and allow translation, contextualization, and possibly other modification of those notices.'''
* Pros: Reduces the risk for users to overlook copyright notice, notice referring to the license, or notice referring to disclaimers of warranty. This risk is higher in at least 2 situations: 1) When those notices are written in languages that a user do not understand well; and 2) When the work under a CC license is long or complex. For example, a notice referring to disclaimers of warranty might not be easily detectable in a given photo gallery web site with multiple pages with many different sections. (And you are required to keep intact "all" such notices.)
** Allowing contextualization of the notices would reduce the risk of bearing non-sensical or even ineffective notices. For example, if you use a text from web page to create a book, to "keep intact" a notice saying "content of this web page is under CC-BY 3.0 Unported" does not make good sense for readers of a book. (And in practice, many license notices are written in this kind of context-specific way.)
** In some cases, to "keep intact" a notice is impossible. For example, a notice may be given as an audio, as a part of radio program. A user cannot "keep intact" the audio notice if he wants to use the content of the audio for a photo or a book. More importantly, notice seems to be given visually in many cases, by using a CC license logo. To keep intact a logo may be challenge if a user wants to create a non-visual work, or use the work in an environment where only text-data is usable.
** In theory, this requirement to keep intact "all" notices could be used to intentionally block further reuse even when license and technology would allow reuse. Imagine a user of a licensed CC-BY-SA work adds a few hundred notices to an Adaptation. Those who wishes to use such work would find it very difficult to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" such notices. Allowing more flexible attribution and marking would prevent such effort. Another theoretical example would be to embed notices in easy-to-overlook places within a movie, a video game, or a long book. A user may need to first find all the notices to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" notices.
** Note also that reuse (creation of adaptations/ derivatives) under BY-SA licenses would end up accumulating license notices. "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic" may appear "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 US." That would look like the work is dual-licensed, while it is not. It is simply that an original work was under 2.0, and a derivative is under 3.0.
** As far as I can tell, in practice, very few people comply with (or even understand) this requirement, so relaxing it would have the effect of bringing the license into alignment with common usage. If common usage has been ignorning, at least to some extent, this requirement for the past 5 or 6 years, then that is probably a pretty good argument against the con that unwanted exploitation might arise, as I'm not aware of any court battles over this point.
* Cons: Like many relaxation of requirements, it could serve as an opening for unwanted exploitation.
* Other comments: I think there is some room for interpretation what exactly is to "keep intact."
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated some changes in the spirit of this proposal. See the 3.0/4.0 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated some changes in this spirit by suggesting keeping intact existing copyright notices as a a way to comply with the other attribution requirements. See the d1/d2 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.

'''''BY Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Make clearer what is meant by "credit" by stopping the use of the word in two different ways.''' - "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation" is one place where the word appears, and "remove ... any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested" is another place where the same word is used but to mean a wider set of information.
* Pros: Increase the ease of complying the license terms, and reduce unintended failure to comply with the requirements.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by avoiding use of the term ''credit'' in this draft.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Explicitly allow attribution via a provision of a URI, when a web page with that URI provides attribution'''
* Pros: This would solve the problem sometimes referred to as attribution stack-up - when there are too many authors to attribute to, that would restrict the scope of reuse. Allowing the use of a web page to provide attribution, and requiring just a display of its URL for attribution would make reuse possible in those cases. A typical example - copying some text from Wikipedia's heavily edited article to a blog. If you need to copy the whole list of the authors, it could be difficult and time-consuming. If you could simply show a URL of the page on Wikipedia where you can see a list of people edited the page, that would be a lot easier and quicker.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, but we have retained requirement that the licensee must provide the URI only if it references copyright notice or licensing information. Further input needed, including suggestions for other alternative means for allowing attribution.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Consider giving the right to request credit removal to actual people receiving credits.''' - The current license allows only licensor to make such a request. Note that a CC licensed work may not carry information about licensor's name or contact at all. Credits may tell licensee about authors and other entities the credits are given to. When a CC-BY-SA work is adapted a few times by a few different parties, a licensee may not be able to tell who the licensors are.
* Pros: When removal request has to come from a licensor, there are two consequences: 1) A licensee cannot tell a removal request coming from authentic licensor from fake one, and 2) authors and other entities receiving credits may or may not necessarily know how to contact a licensor when they want to request a removal.
* Cons: A complication could still arise if this proposal is implemented because authentification of authors and other entities receiving credits are not easy, either. It is perhaps easier than telling who is a licensor for a given set of credit.
* Other comments: In general, it is not easy to understand the distinction between an author and a licensor.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not included. Granting rights to third parties who are not a party to the license presents challenges on multiple levels.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Consider limiting the "keep intact" and other crediting & marking obligations to only those pieces of information that are clearly present and easily identifiable. Make a licensee's failure to comply with properly crediting not a trigger for terminating the license.''' - For example, it is often difficult to tell if a URI accompanying a work is "specified" by the licensor. The same can be said even about the name of an author, when there are more than one name displayed for the same account. Flickr accounts may have an account name and a name of a person. It may be difficult to tell if a file name is meant to be a title for a photo or the photo is untitled. Many blog posts are accompanied by poster's account names, separate from their full names (typically linked from those nick names), which is different from name of the organization (typically found at the copyright notice) the blog is for. Which name is "supplied" as the name of the Original Author in this case?
* Pros: Increased ease of use of licensed works.
* Cons: In theory, unwanted crediting, or omission thereof may increase.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by specifying that only information supplied (such as name and title) must be provided and subjecting all requirements to reasonableness standard. See also discussion regarding [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|Relaxation of Termination Provision]].
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Further modified to no longer require title.

'''''BY Proposal No.10:''''' '''Consider increasing machine-readability of credits and marks.'''
* Pros: If a simple script can identify all or most of the information needed for giving a credit, it would improve license compliance for a wider range of works and licensees.
* Cons: If done in legalcode(?) this could result in massive incompliance with licenses, as machine-readability is hard to get right
* Other comments: It seems like this should be done regardless, but in external tooling work by the tech team and the rest of the CC-using ecosystem?
** It's not clear what this proposal means to say. For example, the HTML provided by the CC license chooser does contain attribution metadata, as long as the copyright holder provided that information when the filled out the chooser form. As far as downstream reuse, this proposal would imply that reusers would need to likely manually enter that metadata, which isn't going to happen. At the moment, the main way in which this attribution metadata is revealed to reusers is if they follow the license mark to the license deed, in which case attribution HTML will be provided on the deed, which itself contains metadata. However, not everyone will click through to the deed.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in draft because this is a technical rather than legal proposal.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 11:''''' '''Clarify the language about URI specified by the licensor''' - currently it says, in part, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work," and what it means seems to be "as long as resource identified by such URI includes the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work."
* Pros: In a Web environment, many people may like to be attributed via some URL, such as a personal site or web page. Limiting the requirement of attributing wih a URL to only when the URL contains copyright information probably isn't what most people have in mind.
** Allowing a copyright holder to require attribution to a URL (any URL, regardless of what is behind it), may make it easier for downstream reusers to actually know who the copyright holder is, and how to contact them for additional permissions. For example, if I find an image on some web site and all the data I have is some user name and the CC license mark, then it may be nigh impossible to contact the copyright holder. On the other hand, if a licensor can require attribution to some certain URL, then finding that person suddenly becomes much more feasible.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 12:''''' '''Remove provision that allows licensors to request removal of attribution or amend it to cover only requests for removal of misleading or inaccurate attribution.'''
* Pros: This provision arguably does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines because it requires removal of attribution upon request, even where attribution is accurate and not misleading.
* Cons: The provision, in its 3.0 form, reassures licensors who are concerned their reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they license under Creative Commons.
* Other comments: More information about this proposal is included in this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html email thread] and this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html email thread] from license-discuss.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not incorporated. The purpose of this clause is to allow those receiving credit to distance themselves from reuses they may find objectionable. This encourages use of public licenses by those wishing to share but who are concerned about being associated with those uses. In all events, in this draft as in 3.0, removal is required only when reasonably practical.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 13:''''' '''Change "reasonable manner" qualifier in attribution requirements to "any reasonably prominent manner" or "a reasonable manner consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary attribution for the medium or means You are using.'''
* Pros: Helps ensure that attribution is made as prominent as is reasonably possible.
* Cons: May not add much because "reasonable" inherently means reasonably prominent.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated to some extent by including the concept of "context."

'''''BY Proposal No. 14:''''' '''Resolve the source of conflict between "in the manner designated by Licensor" (3.(a)(1)(A)) and "in any reasonable manner" (3.(a)(3)) in the public draft 2.''' One way is to add a language to 3.(a)(3) "For the avoidance of doubt, if you cannot strictly give attribution in the manner designated by the Licensor, it is okay as long as your manner of giving attribution is reasonable based on the medium, means and context in which the Work or Adaptation is used." A Licensor may well designate that the author should be attributed on the opening page of any Adaptation in color, with the author's name hyperlinked to a certain web page.
* Pros: Resolve a (seeming) source of conflict that may stifle reuse of licensed works.
* Cons: Additional words mean a lay person has to spend additional unpleasant time to read the license.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.2 publication.

''Please add other BY proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Marking requirements ==
Beyond the marking requirements related to attribution described above, the CC licenses contain additional requirements for properly marking a CC-licensed work:

* in those licenses that permit adaptations (BY, BY-NC, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA), if an adaptation is made (including any translation in any medium), the licensee must take reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work"; <ref> See Section 3(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>
* for every copy of the work distributed or publicly performed, the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(a) of the licenses.</ref>
** include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the license;
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license and to the disclaimer of warranties;
* for every adaptation of the work that is distributed or publicly performed (where adaptations are permitted), the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations</ref>:
** include a copy of, or the URI for, the license (for the original work); <ref> The international (unported) BY-SA and BY-NC-SA incorrectly refer to "Applicable License" in Section 4(b). This is a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata#Incorrect_reference_to_.22the_Applicable_License.22 known error].</ref>
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license (for the original work) and to the disclaimer of warranties.

These marking requirements have attracted some criticism:
# For adaptations, lack of clarity or uniformity as to placement of the mark or label indicating that changes were made to the original work.
# Absence of flexibility (such as through a reasonableness requirement) for inclusion of the URI.

'''Note: For proposals relating to marking requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for marking requirements in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Marking Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Making the inclusion of the URI subject to a "reasonable to the medium or means" requirement'''
* Pros
* Cons
* Other comments
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, though only required if the URI references a resource containing attribution or licensing information.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''Marking Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Require description of changes made to original work in adaptations.'''
* Pros: Makes it easier to identify the original work within an adaptation
* Cons: Requires a lot of extra text that could get very detailed; increases burden on reusers
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposal made after d.1 published.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposal made after d.2 published.

''Please add other marking proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0==

In draft 1 of v.4, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations.

Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor:
*Name of the author
*Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution
*Title of the work
*Copyright notice
*URI associated with the work
*URI associated with the CC license
*Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license

(1) Is there any other information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical.
*'''Comments:'''
*Is it necessary to require attribution? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Can licensors select their desired attribution elements in the Chooser, rather than mandating a specific set? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Should there be an element for related data sets? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*"Attribution Parties" should be dropped entirely. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**But: some works made possible/assisted by parties who are not the author; there should be space to credit them. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Requiring removal of attribution may not be in line with DFSG. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html]
**Benefit does not exceed cost if this is true, unless required by moral rights (which should be clarified). [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Publish a standard for correct attribution, but allow experimentation in community-developed standards, which licensors may follow but are not bound to. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*There are going to be scaling issues with requiring licensees to provide the name of the author - this could go all GFDL very quickly, with big bulky booklets or attribution pages required for the smallest amount of derivation. In particular, I'm worried about places like Wikipedia - you get articles with hundreds or thousands or ''tens'' of thousands of unique contributors. Listing all of them seems like the sort of overkill that undermined the GFDL, and is likely to cause implementation problems for licensors - if you come up to well-trafficked wikis and tell them that, in order to use 4.0 and not seriously vex anyone using their content, they're going to have to provide a method of getting an incredibly barebones list of all contributors to a specific page that people can copy and paste...that could take time and effort that are better spent on other things. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*An additional concern is that "name of the author" is unnecessarily vague; I'd change it to "the author's chosen name or pseudonym" (which is basically how it works in the UK anyway - the author gets to choose). My issue is that when I see "name of the author", I think "real name", and again, I don't think this is likely to scale or apply to online works nicely. It reads as if contributors will have to out themselves to use the licenses without messing with licensees, and while I know this isn't what's meant, some clarity would be helpful. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(2) All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem?
*'''Comments:'''

*For many elements, licensees don't know how to comply and may be confused by leaving it open-ended; we should provide guidance and/or verbatim statements for unfamiliar elements such as "copyright notice". [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Many reusers are unfamiliar with the "URI" acronym and need explanation, examples, or replacement with amore common term. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Amount of flexibility OK, but if adjusted should be in the direction of more flexibility. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(3) If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well?
*'''Comments:'''
*It is probably better to allow not just "a URI" but "one or more URIs." For example, it is common for MediaWiki-based Wikis (including this CC Wiki) to have multiple pages that list contributors. Such list of contributors for this page could be viewed by clicking "History" near the top of the page. And it is currently spanning two pages, having two different URIs.
**Given that URL shortener is currently rather popular, it is better to allow "a resource referenced by the URI that is contained in the resource referenced by the URI" to also benefit from this clause. The current language may be interpreted that the resource containing (i)-(iii) above should be at the URI specified, as opposed to URI redirected from the URI specified.
**Better yet, it should perhaps be allowed to use a URI for attribution to point to the resource referred to by that URI and other resources easily identifiable from that resource.
*Allow a licensee to create a resource (such as a web page listing all attribution information), and use its URI, when that resource contains (i)-(iii).
*In some cases, the resource at a URI contains only (i) and not (ii) and (iii). I think it is okay still to allow replacing the list of names of authors with a URI and supply (ii) and (iii) separately.
*Copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, etc., should be readable even offline, so URI alone is insufficient. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(4) Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license.
*'''Comments:'''
*The complication could come from four sources that I can imagine: a) language and font that is not readily available for medium or means licensee wants to use; b) visual, audio, text, and other media-specific requirements that does not fit with licensee's medium or means; c) how a licensee (or even his lawyer) can know that some specific attribution is required when he is not fluent in the language, and/ or the work is voluminous; d) one may not know if an attribution element provided by a performer (in a video or audio work, say) or author, means "licensor" "supplied" that element for attribution, because the licensor's relation with the author /performer is not necessarily known to the potential licensees. (Is licensor the same person or not? is a question not necessarily easy to answer, for example.)
**See also, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of the difficulties surrounding attribution compliance.
**These complications could result in failure to comply, and/ or decision not to use the work because of the high cost of compliance/ risk of failing to comply. But this is not really limited to "specific attribution requirements" discussed here.
**One possible way to deal with this (or a part of this) issue is to tolerate failure to attribute when the attribution elements are supplied in a manner neither prominent, conventional, nor consolidated with other element that is supplied in a prominent or conventional manner.
**A question arises when one uses URI (i.e. an external resource) to give attribution. Is

*No, compliance with attribution is already difficult enough. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**Agreed with difficulty, and we don't want to make it harder to distinguish libre/non-libre content. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]

*Nonstandard requirements increase transaction costs. Community standards for additional requirements could enable automation to reduce these costs. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(5) Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not?
*'''Comments:'''
*Pro: It is in general difficult to determine what is "supplied" by "licensor." It is not necessarily easy to determine what is title, author's name, notice referring to the license, etc. (See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of these difficulties.)
*Con: Citation may not enable the recipient of the work to find the original. Current level of requirement allow licensors to make sure that a recipient, if interested, can reach the original, and its author/ licensor.
*Perhaps prominently and explicitly placed specific attribution requirements should be followed to the extent reasonably practicable with the medium or means to the licensee, but in other cases the attribution could be left to flexible interpretation of the licensee.

*Yes, it gives more freedoms to users & encourages growth of free content community. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*No, insufficient for many licensors, especially some OER projects. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*Enable licensors to require a standard for attribution, let licensors figure out appropriate standard? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue here.''
* ePSIplatform guest blog post dated February 11th, 2011: "[http://epsiplatform.eu/content/cc-tools-and-psi-supporting-attribution-protecting-reputation-and-preserving-integrity CC tools and PSI: Supporting attribution, protecting reputation, and preserving integrity]"
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licenses: Users]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Attribution and marking

2012-10-09T18:39:39Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' This page aggregates discussion topics involving attribution and marking requirements, as the two are closely related and have never been clearly or uniformly differentiated. Attribution has been a standard feature of all CC licenses since the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 version 2.0 suite]. Currently, attribution requirements are primarily contained in Section 4 of the 3.0 licenses. Marking requirements are interspersed throughout the license, including (in version 3.0) in Section 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the licenses permitting adaptations, and in Section 4(a) of the two ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND).
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' In light of our goal to make CC licenses simpler and more user-friendly, we have considerably revamped the manner in which the attribution and marking requirements are conveyed in the license. Most importantly, we have consolidated all of the attribution and marking requirements into one section of the license, outlined them in list form and have labeled that section accordingly. To increase license compliance, we have provided that all attribution requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner depending on the means and medium used. Last, we have added a shortcut, which allows licensees to include the URI associated with the licensed work (or a hyperlink) to satisfy several of the attribution requirements. We look forward to your input on these changes and others, including other suggestions for adjusting this provision to facilitate large collaborations such as Wikipedia. Our goal is to best ensure a proper balance between the author’s attribution rights and the need for flexibility given that any license violation results in automatic termination (at least as currently drafted). See also the discussion regarding relaxing the [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|termination provision]].

Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_attribution_in_4.0|attribution]] and [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_marking_requirements_in_4.0|marking]] proposal below. }}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' We continue our effort to make attribution and marking easy for licensees without undue burden (thus promoting greater compliance), while at the same time respecting the desire of licensors to have relevant information they provide included when the work is further shared. We have retained nearly all of the requirements from the first draft with a few variations intended for clarity and ease of application.

See this attribution and marking [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/5/5f/Attribution_comparision_(4-1.0d2_final_for_31_July).pdf comparison chart] to easily view differences between 3.0, 4.0d1 and 4.0d2.

One change is that the URI requirement is now simpler. The licensee must provide the URI or hyperlink to the source where the work can be accessed. Another change relates to the requirement to retain notices of disclaimers or warranties supplied by licensor. The difference in draft 2 is that licensees must retain any such notices when supplied by the licensor, rather than only those referring to the CC license. This change also supports a corresponding addition found in Section 6(b), which allows licensors to supplement the license to disclaim warranties or limit liabilities differently than the license does in Section 4, or to offer warranties. We have also expanded the URI shortcut, so that licensees may satisfy some or all of the requirements by linking to a particular webpage containing some or all of the necessary information.

We have eliminated the requirement to provide the title of the work and retain copyright notices, though ideally licensees will provide both when supplied by the licensor. In this spirit, we specifically encourage their retention by explicitly permitting licensees to use those notices to comply with any or all attribution requirements when they contain any or all of the required information. We hope this encourages licensors to consolidate attribution and marking information in a central location. Finally, in order to support many communities who have well-accepted practices for how attribution is given (e.g., in scientific and scholarly communities), we now make clear that attribution and marking requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the means, medium and context (the term “context” being new) in which the work is shared.

Finally, we recognize that these revisions may ease the problem of attribution stacking, but that the stacking problem and the challenges associated with attribution in the context of text-mining persist. We will be looking at these two problems more concertedly in the d2 discussion period.
|}

== Attribution ==

The current 3.0 licenses require users of a work to implement the following in any reasonable manner: <ref> See the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users#Marking_on_Your_Site Marking Page] for further information.</ref>

* keep copyright notices intact; and
* reasonable to the medium or means used by the licensee,
** provide the name the original author (or her pseudonym, or other attribution party, when provided);
** provide the title of the work if supplied;
** include the URI associated with the work (if it refers to the copyright notice or licensing information); and
** where an adaptation is created (when permitted by the license), include a credit stating that the work has been used in the adaptation <ref>Per Section 4(b) of the license, in the case of an adaptation or collection, where a credit for all contributing authors appears, the credit required must be at least as prominent as the credits for other contributing authors.</ref>

All 3.0 licenses allow licensors to request removal of the credit when their works are reproduced in a collection, as well as when their works are adapted (where permitted by the licenses). Specifically, all six version 3.0 licenses provide: <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses. </ref>

:: ''If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.''

:: And in BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA, and BY-NC, additionally:

:: ''If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.'' <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>

The attribution requirement is reflected on the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC deeds] as:

:: ''Attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).''

A few [[Case_Law|legal decisions]] have successfully enforced the attribution requirement.

The attribution requirements have drawn some criticism:
# General difficulty understanding what is required on the part of licensees, in part due to the “reasonable to the medium or means” language but also because the language is difficult to parse.
# Are too onerous and do not align with community practices.
# The requirements insufficiently anticipate or account for analog distributions and performances, making it challenging to comply (same criticism is equally applicable to other marking requirements, below).
# Absence of a mechanism for requesting or permitting removal of a credit for reproductions of an unmodified work when not reproduced as part of a collection.<ref>Although, a licensor may always enter into a separate agreement with licensees to have attribution waived.</ref>

'''Note: For criticisms, issues and proposals relating to attribution requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for attribution in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''BY Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Consolidate the attribution requirements into a single location within the licenses (e.g., Section 4) and simplify language, including all other marking requirements (see below), such as providing the URI for the license.'''
* Pros: Users of licensed works would understand requirements more easily, which fosters reuse.
* Cons: Providing only a URI will result in works winding up as ARR in the future when the page to which that URI is directed is dead. [[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-October/007233.html license discuss list ]]
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Consolidated, reorganized and simplified for greater understandability and to facilitate compliance.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Introduce further flexibility into the requirements, to bring them closer into alignment with community practices.'''
* Pros: This would reduce unintentional violations of the licenses, which is especially important because a violation of the license results in automatic termination.
* Cons:
* Other comments: For example, one [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006604.html proposal] from license-discuss is to remove the provision requiring that a credit for an adaptation or collection must be as prominent as the other contributing authors. This requirement might be excessive in some circumstances.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' To increase license compliance, attempted to introduce more flexibility by providing that all requirements may be implemented in a reasonable manner.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand the existing mechanism for requesting removal of the attribution credit so licensors can request removal for any reuse.'''
* Pros: There may be situations where licensors would prefer not to be associated with a particular website, and this would enable them to avoid association by removing attribution credit.
* Cons: Allows people to require removal of author's name even where credit is accurate and factual.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change. Note that this revision may also have relevance where the moral right of withdrawal exists, arguably giving the licensor a functional equivalent when using a perpetual, irrevocable public license.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Create a mechanism in the license allowing licensors to waive attribution completely.'''
* Pros: Potentially useful for keeping alive CC BY-SA but waiving BY aspect without needing a separate and incompatible copyleft (CC SA, which existed and has been deprecated for some time)
* Cons: Reduces need for and potential adoption of CC0.
* Other comments: Couldn't a licensor waive attribution requirements outside of the license with an additional statement and without needing to add anything to the legalcode?
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in this draft, although draft does permit licensors to seek removal of attribution elements for any reuse, including reuse in unmodified form. May be possible to address as technical solution rather than within legal code.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Relax the requirement to "keep intact" copyright notice, notice referring to the license, and notice referring to disclaimers of warranty; and allow translation, contextualization, and possibly other modification of those notices.'''
* Pros: Reduces the risk for users to overlook copyright notice, notice referring to the license, or notice referring to disclaimers of warranty. This risk is higher in at least 2 situations: 1) When those notices are written in languages that a user do not understand well; and 2) When the work under a CC license is long or complex. For example, a notice referring to disclaimers of warranty might not be easily detectable in a given photo gallery web site with multiple pages with many different sections. (And you are required to keep intact "all" such notices.)
** Allowing contextualization of the notices would reduce the risk of bearing non-sensical or even ineffective notices. For example, if you use a text from web page to create a book, to "keep intact" a notice saying "content of this web page is under CC-BY 3.0 Unported" does not make good sense for readers of a book. (And in practice, many license notices are written in this kind of context-specific way.)
** In some cases, to "keep intact" a notice is impossible. For example, a notice may be given as an audio, as a part of radio program. A user cannot "keep intact" the audio notice if he wants to use the content of the audio for a photo or a book. More importantly, notice seems to be given visually in many cases, by using a CC license logo. To keep intact a logo may be challenge if a user wants to create a non-visual work, or use the work in an environment where only text-data is usable.
** In theory, this requirement to keep intact "all" notices could be used to intentionally block further reuse even when license and technology would allow reuse. Imagine a user of a licensed CC-BY-SA work adds a few hundred notices to an Adaptation. Those who wishes to use such work would find it very difficult to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" such notices. Allowing more flexible attribution and marking would prevent such effort. Another theoretical example would be to embed notices in easy-to-overlook places within a movie, a video game, or a long book. A user may need to first find all the notices to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" notices.
** Note also that reuse (creation of adaptations/ derivatives) under BY-SA licenses would end up accumulating license notices. "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic" may appear "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 US." That would look like the work is dual-licensed, while it is not. It is simply that an original work was under 2.0, and a derivative is under 3.0.
** As far as I can tell, in practice, very few people comply with (or even understand) this requirement, so relaxing it would have the effect of bringing the license into alignment with common usage. If common usage has been ignorning, at least to some extent, this requirement for the past 5 or 6 years, then that is probably a pretty good argument against the con that unwanted exploitation might arise, as I'm not aware of any court battles over this point.
* Cons: Like many relaxation of requirements, it could serve as an opening for unwanted exploitation.
* Other comments: I think there is some room for interpretation what exactly is to "keep intact."
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated some changes in the spirit of this proposal. See the 3.0/4.0 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated some changes in this spirit by suggesting keeping intact existing copyright notices as a a way to comply with the other attribution requirements. See the d1/d2 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.

'''''BY Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Make clearer what is meant by "credit" by stopping the use of the word in two different ways.''' - "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation" is one place where the word appears, and "remove ... any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested" is another place where the same word is used but to mean a wider set of information.
* Pros: Increase the ease of complying the license terms, and reduce unintended failure to comply with the requirements.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by avoiding use of the term ''credit'' in this draft.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Explicitly allow attribution via a provision of a URI, when a web page with that URI provides attribution'''
* Pros: This would solve the problem sometimes referred to as attribution stack-up - when there are too many authors to attribute to, that would restrict the scope of reuse. Allowing the use of a web page to provide attribution, and requiring just a display of its URL for attribution would make reuse possible in those cases. A typical example - copying some text from Wikipedia's heavily edited article to a blog. If you need to copy the whole list of the authors, it could be difficult and time-consuming. If you could simply show a URL of the page on Wikipedia where you can see a list of people edited the page, that would be a lot easier and quicker.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, but we have retained requirement that the licensee must provide the URI only if it references copyright notice or licensing information. Further input needed, including suggestions for other alternative means for allowing attribution.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Consider giving the right to request credit removal to actual people receiving credits.''' - The current license allows only licensor to make such a request. Note that a CC licensed work may not carry information about licensor's name or contact at all. Credits may tell licensee about authors and other entities the credits are given to. When a CC-BY-SA work is adapted a few times by a few different parties, a licensee may not be able to tell who the licensors are.
* Pros: When removal request has to come from a licensor, there are two consequences: 1) A licensee cannot tell a removal request coming from authentic licensor from fake one, and 2) authors and other entities receiving credits may or may not necessarily know how to contact a licensor when they want to request a removal.
* Cons: A complication could still arise if this proposal is implemented because authentification of authors and other entities receiving credits are not easy, either. It is perhaps easier than telling who is a licensor for a given set of credit.
* Other comments: In general, it is not easy to understand the distinction between an author and a licensor.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not included. Granting rights to third parties who are not a party to the license presents challenges on multiple levels.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Consider limiting the "keep intact" and other crediting & marking obligations to only those pieces of information that are clearly present and easily identifiable. Make a licensee's failure to comply with properly crediting not a trigger for terminating the license.''' - For example, it is often difficult to tell if a URI accompanying a work is "specified" by the licensor. The same can be said even about the name of an author, when there are more than one name displayed for the same account. Flickr accounts may have an account name and a name of a person. It may be difficult to tell if a file name is meant to be a title for a photo or the photo is untitled. Many blog posts are accompanied by poster's account names, separate from their full names (typically linked from those nick names), which is different from name of the organization (typically found at the copyright notice) the blog is for. Which name is "supplied" as the name of the Original Author in this case?
* Pros: Increased ease of use of licensed works.
* Cons: In theory, unwanted crediting, or omission thereof may increase.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by specifying that only information supplied (such as name and title) must be provided and subjecting all requirements to reasonableness standard. See also discussion regarding [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|Relaxation of Termination Provision]].
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Further modified to no longer require title.

'''''BY Proposal No.10:''''' '''Consider increasing machine-readability of credits and marks.'''
* Pros: If a simple script can identify all or most of the information needed for giving a credit, it would improve license compliance for a wider range of works and licensees.
* Cons: If done in legalcode(?) this could result in massive incompliance with licenses, as machine-readability is hard to get right
* Other comments: It seems like this should be done regardless, but in external tooling work by the tech team and the rest of the CC-using ecosystem?
** It's not clear what this proposal means to say. For example, the HTML provided by the CC license chooser does contain attribution metadata, as long as the copyright holder provided that information when the filled out the chooser form. As far as downstream reuse, this proposal would imply that reusers would need to likely manually enter that metadata, which isn't going to happen. At the moment, the main way in which this attribution metadata is revealed to reusers is if they follow the license mark to the license deed, in which case attribution HTML will be provided on the deed, which itself contains metadata. However, not everyone will click through to the deed.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in draft because this is a technical rather than legal proposal.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 11:''''' '''Clarify the language about URI specified by the licensor''' - currently it says, in part, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work," and what it means seems to be "as long as resource identified by such URI includes the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work."
* Pros: In a Web environment, many people may like to be attributed via some URL, such as a personal site or web page. Limiting the requirement of attributing wih a URL to only when the URL contains copyright information probably isn't what most people have in mind.
** Allowing a copyright holder to require attribution to a URL (any URL, regardless of what is behind it), may make it easier for downstream reusers to actually know who the copyright holder is, and how to contact them for additional permissions. For example, if I find an image on some web site and all the data I have is some user name and the CC license mark, then it may be nigh impossible to contact the copyright holder. On the other hand, if a licensor can require attribution to some certain URL, then finding that person suddenly becomes much more feasible.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 12:''''' '''Remove provision that allows licensors to request removal of attribution or amend it to cover only requests for removal of misleading or inaccurate attribution.'''
* Pros: This provision arguably does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines because it requires removal of attribution upon request, even where attribution is accurate and not misleading.
* Cons: The provision, in its 3.0 form, reassures licensors who are concerned their reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they license under Creative Commons.
* Other comments: More information about this proposal is included in this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html email thread] and this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html email thread] from license-discuss.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not incorporated. The purpose of this clause is to allow those receiving credit to distance themselves from reuses they may find objectionable. This encourages use of public licenses by those wishing to share but who are concerned about being associated with those uses. In all events, in this draft as in 3.0, removal is required only when reasonably practical.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 13:''''' '''Change "reasonable manner" qualifier in attribution requirements to "any reasonably prominent manner" or "a reasonable manner consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary attribution for the medium or means You are using.'''
* Pros: Helps ensure that attribution is made as prominent as is reasonably possible.
* Cons: May not add much because "reasonable" inherently means reasonably prominent.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated to some extent by including the concept of "context."

'''''BY Proposal No. 14:''''' '''Resolve the source of conflict between "in the manner designated by Licensor" (3.(a)(1)(A)) and "in any reasonable manner" (3.(a)(3)) in the public draft 2.''' One way is to add a language to 3.(a)(3) "For the avoidance of doubt, if you cannot strictly give attribution in the manner designated by the Licensor, it is okay as long as your manner of giving attribution is reasonable based on the medium, means and context in which the Work or Adaptation is used." A Licensor may well designate that the author should be attributed on the opening page of any Adaptation in color, with the author's name hyperlinked to a certain web page.
* Pros: Resolve a (seeming) source of conflict that may stifle reuse of licensed works.
* Cons: Additional words mean a lay person has to spend additional unpleasant time to read the license.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.2 publication.

''Please add other BY proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Marking requirements ==
Beyond the marking requirements related to attribution described above, the CC licenses contain additional requirements for properly marking a CC-licensed work:

* in those licenses that permit adaptations (BY, BY-NC, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA), if an adaptation is made (including any translation in any medium), the licensee must take reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work"; <ref> See Section 3(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>
* for every copy of the work distributed or publicly performed, the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(a) of the licenses.</ref>
** include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the license;
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license and to the disclaimer of warranties;
* for every adaptation of the work that is distributed or publicly performed (where adaptations are permitted), the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations</ref>:
** include a copy of, or the URI for, the license (for the original work); <ref> The international (unported) BY-SA and BY-NC-SA incorrectly refer to "Applicable License" in Section 4(b). This is a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata#Incorrect_reference_to_.22the_Applicable_License.22 known error].</ref>
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license (for the original work) and to the disclaimer of warranties.

These marking requirements have attracted some criticism:
# For adaptations, lack of clarity or uniformity as to placement of the mark or label indicating that changes were made to the original work.
# Absence of flexibility (such as through a reasonableness requirement) for inclusion of the URI.

'''Note: For proposals relating to marking requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for marking requirements in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Marking Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Making the inclusion of the URI subject to a "reasonable to the medium or means" requirement'''
* Pros
* Cons
* Other comments
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, though only required if the URI references a resource containing attribution or licensing information.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''Marking Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Require description of changes made to original work in adaptations.'''
* Pros: Makes it easier to identify the original work within an adaptation
* Cons: Requires a lot of extra text that could get very detailed; increases burden on reusers
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposal made after d.1 published.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposal made after d.2 published.

''Please add other marking proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0==

In draft 1 of v.4, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations.

Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor:
*Name of the author
*Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution
*Title of the work
*Copyright notice
*URI associated with the work
*URI associated with the CC license
*Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license

(1) Is there any other information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical.
*'''Comments:'''
*Is it necessary to require attribution? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Can licensors select their desired attribution elements in the Chooser, rather than mandating a specific set? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Should there be an element for related data sets? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*"Attribution Parties" should be dropped entirely. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**But: some works made possible/assisted by parties who are not the author; there should be space to credit them. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Requiring removal of attribution may not be in line with DFSG. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html]
**Benefit does not exceed cost if this is true, unless required by moral rights (which should be clarified). [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Publish a standard for correct attribution, but allow experimentation in community-developed standards, which licensors may follow but are not bound to. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*There are going to be scaling issues with requiring licensees to provide the name of the author - this could go all GFDL very quickly, with big bulky booklets or attribution pages required for the smallest amount of derivation. In particular, I'm worried about places like Wikipedia - you get articles with hundreds or thousands or ''tens'' of thousands of unique contributors. Listing all of them seems like the sort of overkill that undermined the GFDL, and is likely to cause implementation problems for licensors - if you come up to well-trafficked wikis and tell them that, in order to use 4.0 and not seriously vex anyone using their content, they're going to have to provide a method of getting an incredibly barebones list of all contributors to a specific page that people can copy and paste...that could take time and effort that are better spent on other things. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*An additional concern is that "name of the author" is unnecessarily vague; I'd change it to "the author's chosen name or pseudonym" (which is basically how it works in the UK anyway - the author gets to choose). My issue is that when I see "name of the author", I think "real name", and again, I don't think this is likely to scale or apply to online works nicely. It reads as if contributors will have to out themselves to use the licenses without messing with licensees, and while I know this isn't what's meant, some clarity would be helpful. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(2) All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem?
*'''Comments:'''

*For many elements, licensees don't know how to comply and may be confused by leaving it open-ended; we should provide guidance and/or verbatim statements for unfamiliar elements such as "copyright notice". [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Many reusers are unfamiliar with the "URI" acronym and need explanation, examples, or replacement with amore common term. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Amount of flexibility OK, but if adjusted should be in the direction of more flexibility. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(3) If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well?
*'''Comments:'''
*It is probably better to allow not just "a URI" but "one or more URIs." For example, it is common for MediaWiki-based Wikis (including this CC Wiki) to have multiple pages that list contributors. Such list of contributors for this page could be viewed by clicking "History" near the top of the page. And it is currently spanning two pages, having two different URIs.
**Given that URL shortener is currently rather popular, it is better to allow "a resource referenced by the URI that is contained in the resource referenced by the URI" to also benefit from this clause. The current language may be interpreted that the resource containing (i)-(iii) above should be at the URI specified, as opposed to URI redirected from the URI specified.
**Better yet, it should perhaps be allowed to use a URI for attribution to point to the resource referred to by that URI and other resources easily identifiable from that resource.
*Allow a licensee to create a resource (such as a web page listing all attribution information), and use its URI, when that resource contains (i)-(iii).
*In some cases, the resource at a URI contains only (i) and not (ii) and (iii). I think it is okay still to allow replacing the list of names of authors with a URI and supply (ii) and (iii) separately.
*Copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, etc., should be readable even offline, so URI alone is insufficient. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(4) Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license.
*'''Comments:'''
*The complication could come from four sources that I can imagine: a) language and font that is not readily available for medium or means licensee wants to use; b) visual, audio, text, and other media-specific requirements that does not fit with licensee's medium or means; c) how a licensee (or even his lawyer) can know that some specific attribution is required when he is not fluent in the language, and/ or the work is voluminous; d) one may not know if an attribution element provided by a performer (in a video or audio work, say) or author, means "licensor" "supplied" that element for attribution, because the licensor's relation with the author /performer is not necessarily known to the potential licensees. (Is licensor the same person or not? is a question not necessarily easy to answer, for example.)
**See also, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of the difficulties surrounding attribution compliance.
**These complications could result in failure to comply, and/ or decision not to use the work because of the high cost of compliance/ risk of failing to comply. But this is not really limited to "specific attribution requirements" discussed here.
**One possible way to deal with this (or a part of this) issue is to tolerate failure to attribute when the attribution elements are supplied in a manner neither prominent, conventional, nor consolidated with other element that is supplied in a prominent or conventional manner.
**A question arises when one uses URI (i.e. an external resource) to give attribution. Is

*No, compliance with attribution is already difficult enough. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**Agreed with difficulty, and we don't want to make it harder to distinguish libre/non-libre content. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]

*Nonstandard requirements increase transaction costs. Community standards for additional requirements could enable automation to reduce these costs. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(5) Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not?
*'''Comments:'''
*Pro: It is in general difficult to determine what is "supplied" by "licensor." It is not necessarily easy to determine what is title, author's name, notice referring to the license, etc. (See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of these difficulties.)
*Con: Citation may not enable the recipient of the work to find the original. Current level of requirement allow licensors to make sure that a recipient, if interested, can reach the original, and its author/ licensor.
*Perhaps prominently and explicitly placed specific attribution requirements should be followed to the extent reasonably practicable with the medium or means to the licensee, but in other cases the attribution could be left to flexible interpretation of the licensee.

*Yes, it gives more freedoms to users & encourages growth of free content community. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*No, insufficient for many licensors, especially some OER projects. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*Enable licensors to require a standard for attribution, let licensors figure out appropriate standard? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue here.''
* ePSIplatform guest blog post dated February 11th, 2011: "[http://epsiplatform.eu/content/cc-tools-and-psi-supporting-attribution-protecting-reputation-and-preserving-integrity CC tools and PSI: Supporting attribution, protecting reputation, and preserving integrity]"
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licenses: Users]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Attribution and marking

2012-10-09T18:38:52Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' This page aggregates discussion topics involving attribution and marking requirements, as the two are closely related and have never been clearly or uniformly differentiated. Attribution has been a standard feature of all CC licenses since the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 version 2.0 suite]. Currently, attribution requirements are primarily contained in Section 4 of the 3.0 licenses. Marking requirements are interspersed throughout the license, including (in version 3.0) in Section 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the licenses permitting adaptations, and in Section 4(a) of the two ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND).
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' In light of our goal to make CC licenses simpler and more user-friendly, we have considerably revamped the manner in which the attribution and marking requirements are conveyed in the license. Most importantly, we have consolidated all of the attribution and marking requirements into one section of the license, outlined them in list form and have labeled that section accordingly. To increase license compliance, we have provided that all attribution requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner depending on the means and medium used. Last, we have added a shortcut, which allows licensees to include the URI associated with the licensed work (or a hyperlink) to satisfy several of the attribution requirements. We look forward to your input on these changes and others, including other suggestions for adjusting this provision to facilitate large collaborations such as Wikipedia. Our goal is to best ensure a proper balance between the author’s attribution rights and the need for flexibility given that any license violation results in automatic termination (at least as currently drafted). See also the discussion regarding relaxing the [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|termination provision]].

Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_attribution_in_4.0|attribution]] and [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_marking_requirements_in_4.0|marking]] proposal below. }}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' We continue our effort to make attribution and marking easy for licensees without undue burden (thus promoting greater compliance), while at the same time respecting the desire of licensors to have relevant information they provide included when the work is further shared. We have retained nearly all of the requirements from the first draft with a few variations intended for clarity and ease of application.

See this attribution and marking [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/5/5f/Attribution_comparision_(4-1.0d2_final_for_31_July).pdf comparison chart] to easily view differences between 3.0, 4.0d1 and 4.0d2.

One change is that the URI requirement is now simpler. The licensee must provide the URI or hyperlink to the source where the work can be accessed. Another change relates to the requirement to retain notices of disclaimers or warranties supplied by licensor. The difference in draft 2 is that licensees must retain any such notices when supplied by the licensor, rather than only those referring to the CC license. This change also supports a corresponding addition found in Section 6(b), which allows licensors to supplement the license to disclaim warranties or limit liabilities differently than the license does in Section 4, or to offer warranties. We have also expanded the URI shortcut, so that licensees may satisfy some or all of the requirements by linking to a particular webpage containing some or all of the necessary information.

We have eliminated the requirement to provide the title of the work and retain copyright notices, though ideally licensees will provide both when supplied by the licensor. In this spirit, we specifically encourage their retention by explicitly permitting licensees to use those notices to comply with any or all attribution requirements when they contain any or all of the required information. We hope this encourages licensors to consolidate attribution and marking information in a central location. Finally, in order to support many communities who have well-accepted practices for how attribution is given (e.g., in scientific and scholarly communities), we now make clear that attribution and marking requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the means, medium and context (the term “context” being new) in which the work is shared.

Finally, we recognize that these revisions may ease the problem of attribution stacking, but that the stacking problem and the challenges associated with attribution in the context of text-mining persist. We will be looking at these two problems more concertedly in the d2 discussion period.
|}

== Attribution ==

The current 3.0 licenses require users of a work to implement the following in any reasonable manner: <ref> See the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users#Marking_on_Your_Site Marking Page] for further information.</ref>

* keep copyright notices intact; and
* reasonable to the medium or means used by the licensee,
** provide the name the original author (or her pseudonym, or other attribution party, when provided);
** provide the title of the work if supplied;
** include the URI associated with the work (if it refers to the copyright notice or licensing information); and
** where an adaptation is created (when permitted by the license), include a credit stating that the work has been used in the adaptation <ref>Per Section 4(b) of the license, in the case of an adaptation or collection, where a credit for all contributing authors appears, the credit required must be at least as prominent as the credits for other contributing authors.</ref>

All 3.0 licenses allow licensors to request removal of the credit when their works are reproduced in a collection, as well as when their works are adapted (where permitted by the licenses). Specifically, all six version 3.0 licenses provide: <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses. </ref>

:: ''If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.''

:: And in BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA, and BY-NC, additionally:

:: ''If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.'' <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>

The attribution requirement is reflected on the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC deeds] as:

:: ''Attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).''

A few [[Case_Law|legal decisions]] have successfully enforced the attribution requirement.

The attribution requirements have drawn some criticism:
# General difficulty understanding what is required on the part of licensees, in part due to the “reasonable to the medium or means” language but also because the language is difficult to parse.
# Are too onerous and do not align with community practices.
# The requirements insufficiently anticipate or account for analog distributions and performances, making it challenging to comply (same criticism is equally applicable to other marking requirements, below).
# Absence of a mechanism for requesting or permitting removal of a credit for reproductions of an unmodified work when not reproduced as part of a collection.<ref>Although, a licensor may always enter into a separate agreement with licensees to have attribution waived.</ref>

'''Note: For criticisms, issues and proposals relating to attribution requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for attribution in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''BY Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Consolidate the attribution requirements into a single location within the licenses (e.g., Section 4) and simplify language, including all other marking requirements (see below), such as providing the URI for the license.'''
* Pros: Users of licensed works would understand requirements more easily, which fosters reuse.
* Cons: Providing only a URI will result in works winding up as ARR in the future when the page to which that URI is directed is dead. [[license discuss list http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-October/007233.html]]
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Consolidated, reorganized and simplified for greater understandability and to facilitate compliance.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Introduce further flexibility into the requirements, to bring them closer into alignment with community practices.'''
* Pros: This would reduce unintentional violations of the licenses, which is especially important because a violation of the license results in automatic termination.
* Cons:
* Other comments: For example, one [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006604.html proposal] from license-discuss is to remove the provision requiring that a credit for an adaptation or collection must be as prominent as the other contributing authors. This requirement might be excessive in some circumstances.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' To increase license compliance, attempted to introduce more flexibility by providing that all requirements may be implemented in a reasonable manner.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand the existing mechanism for requesting removal of the attribution credit so licensors can request removal for any reuse.'''
* Pros: There may be situations where licensors would prefer not to be associated with a particular website, and this would enable them to avoid association by removing attribution credit.
* Cons: Allows people to require removal of author's name even where credit is accurate and factual.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change. Note that this revision may also have relevance where the moral right of withdrawal exists, arguably giving the licensor a functional equivalent when using a perpetual, irrevocable public license.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Create a mechanism in the license allowing licensors to waive attribution completely.'''
* Pros: Potentially useful for keeping alive CC BY-SA but waiving BY aspect without needing a separate and incompatible copyleft (CC SA, which existed and has been deprecated for some time)
* Cons: Reduces need for and potential adoption of CC0.
* Other comments: Couldn't a licensor waive attribution requirements outside of the license with an additional statement and without needing to add anything to the legalcode?
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in this draft, although draft does permit licensors to seek removal of attribution elements for any reuse, including reuse in unmodified form. May be possible to address as technical solution rather than within legal code.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Relax the requirement to "keep intact" copyright notice, notice referring to the license, and notice referring to disclaimers of warranty; and allow translation, contextualization, and possibly other modification of those notices.'''
* Pros: Reduces the risk for users to overlook copyright notice, notice referring to the license, or notice referring to disclaimers of warranty. This risk is higher in at least 2 situations: 1) When those notices are written in languages that a user do not understand well; and 2) When the work under a CC license is long or complex. For example, a notice referring to disclaimers of warranty might not be easily detectable in a given photo gallery web site with multiple pages with many different sections. (And you are required to keep intact "all" such notices.)
** Allowing contextualization of the notices would reduce the risk of bearing non-sensical or even ineffective notices. For example, if you use a text from web page to create a book, to "keep intact" a notice saying "content of this web page is under CC-BY 3.0 Unported" does not make good sense for readers of a book. (And in practice, many license notices are written in this kind of context-specific way.)
** In some cases, to "keep intact" a notice is impossible. For example, a notice may be given as an audio, as a part of radio program. A user cannot "keep intact" the audio notice if he wants to use the content of the audio for a photo or a book. More importantly, notice seems to be given visually in many cases, by using a CC license logo. To keep intact a logo may be challenge if a user wants to create a non-visual work, or use the work in an environment where only text-data is usable.
** In theory, this requirement to keep intact "all" notices could be used to intentionally block further reuse even when license and technology would allow reuse. Imagine a user of a licensed CC-BY-SA work adds a few hundred notices to an Adaptation. Those who wishes to use such work would find it very difficult to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" such notices. Allowing more flexible attribution and marking would prevent such effort. Another theoretical example would be to embed notices in easy-to-overlook places within a movie, a video game, or a long book. A user may need to first find all the notices to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" notices.
** Note also that reuse (creation of adaptations/ derivatives) under BY-SA licenses would end up accumulating license notices. "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic" may appear "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 US." That would look like the work is dual-licensed, while it is not. It is simply that an original work was under 2.0, and a derivative is under 3.0.
** As far as I can tell, in practice, very few people comply with (or even understand) this requirement, so relaxing it would have the effect of bringing the license into alignment with common usage. If common usage has been ignorning, at least to some extent, this requirement for the past 5 or 6 years, then that is probably a pretty good argument against the con that unwanted exploitation might arise, as I'm not aware of any court battles over this point.
* Cons: Like many relaxation of requirements, it could serve as an opening for unwanted exploitation.
* Other comments: I think there is some room for interpretation what exactly is to "keep intact."
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated some changes in the spirit of this proposal. See the 3.0/4.0 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated some changes in this spirit by suggesting keeping intact existing copyright notices as a a way to comply with the other attribution requirements. See the d1/d2 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.

'''''BY Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Make clearer what is meant by "credit" by stopping the use of the word in two different ways.''' - "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation" is one place where the word appears, and "remove ... any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested" is another place where the same word is used but to mean a wider set of information.
* Pros: Increase the ease of complying the license terms, and reduce unintended failure to comply with the requirements.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by avoiding use of the term ''credit'' in this draft.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Explicitly allow attribution via a provision of a URI, when a web page with that URI provides attribution'''
* Pros: This would solve the problem sometimes referred to as attribution stack-up - when there are too many authors to attribute to, that would restrict the scope of reuse. Allowing the use of a web page to provide attribution, and requiring just a display of its URL for attribution would make reuse possible in those cases. A typical example - copying some text from Wikipedia's heavily edited article to a blog. If you need to copy the whole list of the authors, it could be difficult and time-consuming. If you could simply show a URL of the page on Wikipedia where you can see a list of people edited the page, that would be a lot easier and quicker.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, but we have retained requirement that the licensee must provide the URI only if it references copyright notice or licensing information. Further input needed, including suggestions for other alternative means for allowing attribution.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Consider giving the right to request credit removal to actual people receiving credits.''' - The current license allows only licensor to make such a request. Note that a CC licensed work may not carry information about licensor's name or contact at all. Credits may tell licensee about authors and other entities the credits are given to. When a CC-BY-SA work is adapted a few times by a few different parties, a licensee may not be able to tell who the licensors are.
* Pros: When removal request has to come from a licensor, there are two consequences: 1) A licensee cannot tell a removal request coming from authentic licensor from fake one, and 2) authors and other entities receiving credits may or may not necessarily know how to contact a licensor when they want to request a removal.
* Cons: A complication could still arise if this proposal is implemented because authentification of authors and other entities receiving credits are not easy, either. It is perhaps easier than telling who is a licensor for a given set of credit.
* Other comments: In general, it is not easy to understand the distinction between an author and a licensor.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not included. Granting rights to third parties who are not a party to the license presents challenges on multiple levels.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Consider limiting the "keep intact" and other crediting & marking obligations to only those pieces of information that are clearly present and easily identifiable. Make a licensee's failure to comply with properly crediting not a trigger for terminating the license.''' - For example, it is often difficult to tell if a URI accompanying a work is "specified" by the licensor. The same can be said even about the name of an author, when there are more than one name displayed for the same account. Flickr accounts may have an account name and a name of a person. It may be difficult to tell if a file name is meant to be a title for a photo or the photo is untitled. Many blog posts are accompanied by poster's account names, separate from their full names (typically linked from those nick names), which is different from name of the organization (typically found at the copyright notice) the blog is for. Which name is "supplied" as the name of the Original Author in this case?
* Pros: Increased ease of use of licensed works.
* Cons: In theory, unwanted crediting, or omission thereof may increase.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by specifying that only information supplied (such as name and title) must be provided and subjecting all requirements to reasonableness standard. See also discussion regarding [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|Relaxation of Termination Provision]].
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Further modified to no longer require title.

'''''BY Proposal No.10:''''' '''Consider increasing machine-readability of credits and marks.'''
* Pros: If a simple script can identify all or most of the information needed for giving a credit, it would improve license compliance for a wider range of works and licensees.
* Cons: If done in legalcode(?) this could result in massive incompliance with licenses, as machine-readability is hard to get right
* Other comments: It seems like this should be done regardless, but in external tooling work by the tech team and the rest of the CC-using ecosystem?
** It's not clear what this proposal means to say. For example, the HTML provided by the CC license chooser does contain attribution metadata, as long as the copyright holder provided that information when the filled out the chooser form. As far as downstream reuse, this proposal would imply that reusers would need to likely manually enter that metadata, which isn't going to happen. At the moment, the main way in which this attribution metadata is revealed to reusers is if they follow the license mark to the license deed, in which case attribution HTML will be provided on the deed, which itself contains metadata. However, not everyone will click through to the deed.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in draft because this is a technical rather than legal proposal.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 11:''''' '''Clarify the language about URI specified by the licensor''' - currently it says, in part, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work," and what it means seems to be "as long as resource identified by such URI includes the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work."
* Pros: In a Web environment, many people may like to be attributed via some URL, such as a personal site or web page. Limiting the requirement of attributing wih a URL to only when the URL contains copyright information probably isn't what most people have in mind.
** Allowing a copyright holder to require attribution to a URL (any URL, regardless of what is behind it), may make it easier for downstream reusers to actually know who the copyright holder is, and how to contact them for additional permissions. For example, if I find an image on some web site and all the data I have is some user name and the CC license mark, then it may be nigh impossible to contact the copyright holder. On the other hand, if a licensor can require attribution to some certain URL, then finding that person suddenly becomes much more feasible.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 12:''''' '''Remove provision that allows licensors to request removal of attribution or amend it to cover only requests for removal of misleading or inaccurate attribution.'''
* Pros: This provision arguably does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines because it requires removal of attribution upon request, even where attribution is accurate and not misleading.
* Cons: The provision, in its 3.0 form, reassures licensors who are concerned their reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they license under Creative Commons.
* Other comments: More information about this proposal is included in this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html email thread] and this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html email thread] from license-discuss.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not incorporated. The purpose of this clause is to allow those receiving credit to distance themselves from reuses they may find objectionable. This encourages use of public licenses by those wishing to share but who are concerned about being associated with those uses. In all events, in this draft as in 3.0, removal is required only when reasonably practical.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 13:''''' '''Change "reasonable manner" qualifier in attribution requirements to "any reasonably prominent manner" or "a reasonable manner consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary attribution for the medium or means You are using.'''
* Pros: Helps ensure that attribution is made as prominent as is reasonably possible.
* Cons: May not add much because "reasonable" inherently means reasonably prominent.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated to some extent by including the concept of "context."

'''''BY Proposal No. 14:''''' '''Resolve the source of conflict between "in the manner designated by Licensor" (3.(a)(1)(A)) and "in any reasonable manner" (3.(a)(3)) in the public draft 2.''' One way is to add a language to 3.(a)(3) "For the avoidance of doubt, if you cannot strictly give attribution in the manner designated by the Licensor, it is okay as long as your manner of giving attribution is reasonable based on the medium, means and context in which the Work or Adaptation is used." A Licensor may well designate that the author should be attributed on the opening page of any Adaptation in color, with the author's name hyperlinked to a certain web page.
* Pros: Resolve a (seeming) source of conflict that may stifle reuse of licensed works.
* Cons: Additional words mean a lay person has to spend additional unpleasant time to read the license.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.2 publication.

''Please add other BY proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Marking requirements ==
Beyond the marking requirements related to attribution described above, the CC licenses contain additional requirements for properly marking a CC-licensed work:

* in those licenses that permit adaptations (BY, BY-NC, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA), if an adaptation is made (including any translation in any medium), the licensee must take reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work"; <ref> See Section 3(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>
* for every copy of the work distributed or publicly performed, the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(a) of the licenses.</ref>
** include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the license;
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license and to the disclaimer of warranties;
* for every adaptation of the work that is distributed or publicly performed (where adaptations are permitted), the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations</ref>:
** include a copy of, or the URI for, the license (for the original work); <ref> The international (unported) BY-SA and BY-NC-SA incorrectly refer to "Applicable License" in Section 4(b). This is a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata#Incorrect_reference_to_.22the_Applicable_License.22 known error].</ref>
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license (for the original work) and to the disclaimer of warranties.

These marking requirements have attracted some criticism:
# For adaptations, lack of clarity or uniformity as to placement of the mark or label indicating that changes were made to the original work.
# Absence of flexibility (such as through a reasonableness requirement) for inclusion of the URI.

'''Note: For proposals relating to marking requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

=== Proposals for marking requirements in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Marking Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Making the inclusion of the URI subject to a "reasonable to the medium or means" requirement'''
* Pros
* Cons
* Other comments
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, though only required if the URI references a resource containing attribution or licensing information.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''Marking Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Require description of changes made to original work in adaptations.'''
* Pros: Makes it easier to identify the original work within an adaptation
* Cons: Requires a lot of extra text that could get very detailed; increases burden on reusers
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposal made after d.1 published.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposal made after d.2 published.

''Please add other marking proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0==

In draft 1 of v.4, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations.

Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor:
*Name of the author
*Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution
*Title of the work
*Copyright notice
*URI associated with the work
*URI associated with the CC license
*Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license

(1) Is there any other information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical.
*'''Comments:'''
*Is it necessary to require attribution? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Can licensors select their desired attribution elements in the Chooser, rather than mandating a specific set? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Should there be an element for related data sets? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*"Attribution Parties" should be dropped entirely. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**But: some works made possible/assisted by parties who are not the author; there should be space to credit them. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Requiring removal of attribution may not be in line with DFSG. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html]
**Benefit does not exceed cost if this is true, unless required by moral rights (which should be clarified). [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Publish a standard for correct attribution, but allow experimentation in community-developed standards, which licensors may follow but are not bound to. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*There are going to be scaling issues with requiring licensees to provide the name of the author - this could go all GFDL very quickly, with big bulky booklets or attribution pages required for the smallest amount of derivation. In particular, I'm worried about places like Wikipedia - you get articles with hundreds or thousands or ''tens'' of thousands of unique contributors. Listing all of them seems like the sort of overkill that undermined the GFDL, and is likely to cause implementation problems for licensors - if you come up to well-trafficked wikis and tell them that, in order to use 4.0 and not seriously vex anyone using their content, they're going to have to provide a method of getting an incredibly barebones list of all contributors to a specific page that people can copy and paste...that could take time and effort that are better spent on other things. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*An additional concern is that "name of the author" is unnecessarily vague; I'd change it to "the author's chosen name or pseudonym" (which is basically how it works in the UK anyway - the author gets to choose). My issue is that when I see "name of the author", I think "real name", and again, I don't think this is likely to scale or apply to online works nicely. It reads as if contributors will have to out themselves to use the licenses without messing with licensees, and while I know this isn't what's meant, some clarity would be helpful. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(2) All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem?
*'''Comments:'''

*For many elements, licensees don't know how to comply and may be confused by leaving it open-ended; we should provide guidance and/or verbatim statements for unfamiliar elements such as "copyright notice". [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Many reusers are unfamiliar with the "URI" acronym and need explanation, examples, or replacement with amore common term. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Amount of flexibility OK, but if adjusted should be in the direction of more flexibility. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(3) If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well?
*'''Comments:'''
*It is probably better to allow not just "a URI" but "one or more URIs." For example, it is common for MediaWiki-based Wikis (including this CC Wiki) to have multiple pages that list contributors. Such list of contributors for this page could be viewed by clicking "History" near the top of the page. And it is currently spanning two pages, having two different URIs.
**Given that URL shortener is currently rather popular, it is better to allow "a resource referenced by the URI that is contained in the resource referenced by the URI" to also benefit from this clause. The current language may be interpreted that the resource containing (i)-(iii) above should be at the URI specified, as opposed to URI redirected from the URI specified.
**Better yet, it should perhaps be allowed to use a URI for attribution to point to the resource referred to by that URI and other resources easily identifiable from that resource.
*Allow a licensee to create a resource (such as a web page listing all attribution information), and use its URI, when that resource contains (i)-(iii).
*In some cases, the resource at a URI contains only (i) and not (ii) and (iii). I think it is okay still to allow replacing the list of names of authors with a URI and supply (ii) and (iii) separately.
*Copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, etc., should be readable even offline, so URI alone is insufficient. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(4) Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license.
*'''Comments:'''
*The complication could come from four sources that I can imagine: a) language and font that is not readily available for medium or means licensee wants to use; b) visual, audio, text, and other media-specific requirements that does not fit with licensee's medium or means; c) how a licensee (or even his lawyer) can know that some specific attribution is required when he is not fluent in the language, and/ or the work is voluminous; d) one may not know if an attribution element provided by a performer (in a video or audio work, say) or author, means "licensor" "supplied" that element for attribution, because the licensor's relation with the author /performer is not necessarily known to the potential licensees. (Is licensor the same person or not? is a question not necessarily easy to answer, for example.)
**See also, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of the difficulties surrounding attribution compliance.
**These complications could result in failure to comply, and/ or decision not to use the work because of the high cost of compliance/ risk of failing to comply. But this is not really limited to "specific attribution requirements" discussed here.
**One possible way to deal with this (or a part of this) issue is to tolerate failure to attribute when the attribution elements are supplied in a manner neither prominent, conventional, nor consolidated with other element that is supplied in a prominent or conventional manner.
**A question arises when one uses URI (i.e. an external resource) to give attribution. Is

*No, compliance with attribution is already difficult enough. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**Agreed with difficulty, and we don't want to make it harder to distinguish libre/non-libre content. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]

*Nonstandard requirements increase transaction costs. Community standards for additional requirements could enable automation to reduce these costs. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(5) Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not?
*'''Comments:'''
*Pro: It is in general difficult to determine what is "supplied" by "licensor." It is not necessarily easy to determine what is title, author's name, notice referring to the license, etc. (See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of these difficulties.)
*Con: Citation may not enable the recipient of the work to find the original. Current level of requirement allow licensors to make sure that a recipient, if interested, can reach the original, and its author/ licensor.
*Perhaps prominently and explicitly placed specific attribution requirements should be followed to the extent reasonably practicable with the medium or means to the licensee, but in other cases the attribution could be left to flexible interpretation of the licensee.

*Yes, it gives more freedoms to users & encourages growth of free content community. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*No, insufficient for many licensors, especially some OER projects. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*Enable licensors to require a standard for attribution, let licensors figure out appropriate standard? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue here.''
* ePSIplatform guest blog post dated February 11th, 2011: "[http://epsiplatform.eu/content/cc-tools-and-psi-supporting-attribution-protecting-reputation-and-preserving-integrity CC tools and PSI: Supporting attribution, protecting reputation, and preserving integrity]"
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licenses: Users]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Technical protection measures

2012-10-09T18:26:32Z

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' This issue has not been addressed in this initial draft. We would like further input from the community before we can make a decision on this important component of the licenses. In particular, we would like to hear about more use cases and the pros/cons of adjusting or removing the provision. Note the TPM provision is bracketed in the two places it appears in the published draft, mirroring the language from v3.0, for ease of reference. We look forward to hearing concrete proposals and use cases for changing (or retaining) the current treatment. }}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' The restriction on the use of effective technological measures by licensees remains unchanged in draft 2, although the language has been edited for simplicity and combined with related provisions about imposing restrictions on the work. The explanation below provides more detail about our thinking.

Two primary arguments have been advanced in favor of revising the TPM clause.

* The first is that DRM is pervasive and commonly used on many media distribution platforms, including Japanese television broadcasting. By disallowing licensees from uploading CC-licensed content to those platforms, it is argued, we limit the reach of CC-licensed content.

* The second argument is again related to DRM-restricted platforms but rests on the reality that people are already uploading CC-licensed content to those platforms on a wide scale, not realizing they are violating the terms of CC licenses by doing so. In order to address this innocent copyright infringement, it is argued that CC should amend the TPM restriction to adapt to common user practice.

The two main proposals argued for in 4.0 are to allow licensees to use TPMs but require parallel distribution, or grant downstream users permission to circumvent. We have opted not to pursue either of these in 4.0 at this time in favor of facilitating an opt-in for those licensors wishing to grant permission.

* Parallel distribution places a heavy burden on licensees by requiring them to simultaneously supply a modifiable version of the licensed work if they apply TPM to the work. As a practical matter, this requirement has the potential for being overlooked at least as much as the current TPM restriction is now, doing little to reduce unintentional violations. Our second concern is that in many cases it may not be possible to comply. Nothing in the license stops a licensor from placing TPMs on their licensed work or otherwise releasing their work in a format that does not allow modification. This means a licensee may not have access to a suitable version of the work in order to satisfy the parallel distribution requirement when attempting to upload the work to a TPM'd platform. On balance, this approach seems to add further complexity to the license without much corresponding benefit.

* The other popular proposal would allow licensees to apply TPM to CC-licensed content but waive any right (they held) to forbid circumvention. The GPL has a similar provision, but as recognized during the 3.0 versioning process, that circumvention language addresses the use of licensed code as a functional component of TPM, which is not relevant in the CC license context. The bigger problem in our view, however, is that the waiver would likely have little impact and could be misleading for licensees. Licensees do not often apply TPMs directly to CC-licensed content directly, but instead upload content to third party platforms that use DRM. In those cases, it is the platform providers who must give permission to circumvent. In some cases, this is a matter of law. For example, under U.S. law the person harmed by the circumvention of TPM has a right to bring a lawsuit under anti-circumvention laws. In other cases, it is simply a matter of violating the platform provider’s terms of use. But either way, anti-circumvention laws often make doing so a crime. Allowing it via our licenses arguably sets licensees up to violate criminal laws, and that is not a desirable result however well we were to educate on this point.

In light of the problems with the two most popular proposals for amending the TPM clause, we feel the best option is to keep the provision as is. However, to help address the valid objectives of encouraging CC-licensed content to be used on DRM’d platforms, CC will look for ways to facilitate waivers of the TPM restriction by licensors who want their licensed content to be used on DRM-restricted platforms. This is something we will work on between now and publication of 4.0.
|}

= Overview =

Since Version 1.0, the CC licenses have contained language prohibiting imposition of TPMs on CC-licensed works. The current language in [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode CC BY-SA 3.0 4(a)] is the following:
:::You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

(Similar language is in 4(b).)

Within the CC and libre licensing communities, this language has been controversial for a long time, in part because it potentially (and paradoxically, given the clause's purpose) limits users' freedoms and complicates use of CC-licensed material in widely used platforms that have TPMs built in.

Outside of the CC and libre licensing communities, awareness of this clause may be minimal. Reasons for this apparently include the choice not to mention this language in the license chooser and human-readable deeds.

One potential solution (the addition of a "parallel distribution" requirement) was extensively discussed, but rejected, for 3.0. For extensive review of the discussion which led up to that rejection, see [[Version 3#DRM]].

Since the creation of the original CC TPM language, TPMs have become more commonplace. For example:

* Several popular game and media distribution platforms, such as the PlayStation and most modern digital TVs (via HDMI/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection HDCP]), require TPMs.

* Apple's iOS App Store app distribution platform uses the combination of FairPlay TPM (and perhaps other measures) to control use of iOS apps. This limitation may constitute an effective technological measure on the content stored within iOS apps, so distribution of CC-licensed materials via the App Store may constitute a violation of the license. Further research on this issue would be welcome; in particular, it would be good to understand under what conditions (if ever), and to what extent, FairPlay or other TPMs in iOS "restrict the ability of a recipient ... to exercise the rights granted" by the CC licenses. A potential starting point for such research, describing various security mechanisms in iOS, including FairPlay and on-disk encryption, may be found [http://trailofbits.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ios-security-evaluation.pdf here].

* All Japanese terrestrial broadcasting is protected by a TPM. As a result, CC Japan receives inquiries about use of CC-licensed materials in Japanese TV at least monthly, if not more frequently. CC Japan's answers to this question include the point that "you cannot use the image without creating adaptation, (or find a way not to impose TPM for the segment)." When the image is CC-BY-ND, it is impossible to comply with the current language and broadcast CC materials over terrestrial TV in Japan. Friends of CC have heard from an industry source that not imposing a TPM on a particular Japanese terrestrial broadcast is technically possible, but practically impossible. This conflict between the anti-TPM clause and digital TV was raised in 2008 Summit's Legal Day. At the time, the problem was expected but somewhat theoretical. Now that all terrestrial TV broadcasting became digital-only for most of Japan, it is real. Some at the time pointed out that TPM would not be sustainable so we could simply wait and the TPM would disappear. That prediction is not right so far.

= Proposals for 4.0 =
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''TPM Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Drop prohibition of effective technical protection measures, and add permission to circumvent, possibly using GPLv3's Sec. 3's well vetted language as closely as possible.'''

After several years of discussion, GPL version 3, Sec. 3 ("Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law") attempts to allow circumvention of TPMs that either (1) incorporate the GPL-licensed work as part of their functionality or (2) are used to restrict access to the GPL-licensed work. The actual language is as follows:

::: ''No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure ..."
:::
::: ''When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.''

The GNU project offers an in-depth [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm explanation of this clause]. FSF-E has a summary of several talks on the subject by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen, as well as drafts of earlier versions of this language [https://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3 here].

The first and third portions of the GPL language focus on the use of the licensed work as ''a functional component'' a TPM, rather than application of a TPM ''to'' the licensed work. Since CC-licensed works are unlikely to be a functional component of a TPM, these portions are likely inapplicable to Creative Commons licenses. Eliminating those portions leaves the following language (adjusted for terminology in CC 3.0):

::: When you Distribute a Work, You waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the Work.

Note that a clause of this type could be used in parallel to the existing language; i.e., the license could both prohibit application of TPM and permit circumvention if a TPM was applied.

* '''Pros:'''
** This clause places no new obligations on the distributor, so compliance is easier when compared to a parallel distribution obligation or similar clause that requires a proactive step by the licensee.
*'''Cons:'''
** Permitting circumvention is, in practice, not equivalent to ensuring access, because many TPMs may be difficult or illegal to circumvent. (For example, in Japan, such sales, manufacturing, and other acts related to circumvention device are a crime punishable up to 3 years in prison, etc., according to [http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl8.html#cl7+A120bis Art.120bis of Japanese copyright law].)
** It is also possible to drop the TPM clause in only some licenses; e.g., it may make sense to make CC-BY a more "pure" "attribution is the only requirement" license by dropping the TPM provision altogether, while keeping the requirement in CC-BY-SA. For more discussion of this, see [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006586.html this mailing list thread, among others.]
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed as still gathering information.
* ''''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''TPM Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Allow parallel distribution in place of total TPM prohibition.'''

* '''Pros:'''
** Allow copying of a digital image under CC-BY into increasingly common TPM-protected distribution channels, such as the Japanese TV programs discussed above.

* '''Cons:'''
** It was explicitly rejected during the 3.0 discussion. There were a variety of reasons for this, including negative reception by CC's international affiliate teams. [[Version_3#DRM]] contains extensive review of those discussions.
** For more information on the previous discussions about parallel distribution, see:
*** the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 blog post] by Mia Garlick announcing the launch of the 3.0 discussion,
*** the parallel distribution comments and responses from Mia's [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060908/da9db6a3/attachment.pdf 3.0 response chart],
*** the DRM Dave hypothetical and Nic Suzor's [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/004199.html responses] ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-December/004640.htm #2]),
*** [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/005056.html email list] giving a gist of the discussion compiled by Terry Hancock,
*** [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/004277.html the end of the discussion],
*** an [http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution essay] supporting parallel distribution by Mako Hill and James Grimmelmann and the [http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution discussion] it created
*** Mike Linksvayer's [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006830.html excellent summary] of the 2006 discussion, the current state of DRM and suggestions for 4.0

or [http://gondwanaland.com/tmp/cclists-drm.mbox.gz download] all the previous DRM emails.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed as still gathering information.
* ''''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''TPM Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Communicate the DRM prohibition especially on license deeds.''
*Pros: Increases license users' awareness of the clause.
*Cons:
Suggested by Luis Villa on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006663.html license-discuss].
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1''': Not addressed as this is a deed issue.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2''': Same.

'''''TPM Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Make anti-DRM advocacy a bigger part of CC's overall message''
*Pros:
*Cons:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed as this is a policy issue.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

''Please add other TPM proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

= Related debate =
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''
*DRM proposals for 4.0 are also discussed [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#DRM_in_BY-SA_but_not_BY| here]].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2011-December/thread.html#6559 2011-12 discussion on cc-community]
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/subject.html#6582 debate about parallel distribution on cc-licenses]
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006586.html proposal for removing TPM restriction in BY on cc-licenses]
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/subject.html#6588 summary of DRM issue on cc-licenses]

= Relevant references =
Whether a copyright holder can grant permission to circumvent technical protection measures differs by jurisdiction. Whether a person or entity other than the copyright holder has standing to sue or bring criminal charges against someone who circumvents technical protection measures, even when circumvention is done with permission of the copyright holder, also differs by jurisdiction.

'''United States'''

In the United States, the Copyright Act provides that, "“Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation.” – ''17 U.S.C. § 1203(a)''

Case law seems clear that others injured by the circumvention have standing to sue even when they are not the copyright holder.
* ''EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Viewtech, Inc.'', 543 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2008)
* ''Comcast of Illinois X, L.L.C. v. Hightech Electronics, Inc.'', No. 03 C 3231, 2004 WL 1718522 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2004)
* ''Bose BV v. Zavala'', 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2719 (Mass. 2010)

However, Section 1201(3)(a) defines “circumvention” to include a concept of “without the authority of the copyright holder.” This could suggest that if the copyright holder of a protected work grants the right to circumvent DRM applied by a third party, third parties would not have a cause of action under 1201 unless the act of circumvention included accessing another copyrighted work (e.g. reverse engineering and accessing underlying source code to the DRM algorithm itself). The interplay between a CC licensor granting permission to (or agreeing not to enforce) circumvention and the implied or express permission granted the distributor applying the TPM (through a terms of use, distribution agreement, or waiver of the condition in CC licenses prohibiting application of TPMs to CC-licensed works) is unclear. As a practical matter, the cases cited above generally focus on distribution of technology or devices used for circumvention (rather than individual acts of circumvention), where a defense that the copyright holder granted permission to circumvent or agreed not to enforce rights to prevent it generally wouldn’t come up.

'''[other jurisdictions]'''

''Please add other citations that ought to inform this 4.0 issue below.''

4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

2012-10-09T17:52:52Z

Aurelia Schultz:

{{4.0 Issue}}

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==
'''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.

'''Treatment in 4.0d2:''' No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.

'''Post 4.0d2 update:''' During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.

==Considerations==

There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode as in version 1.0], and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.

===Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings===

* These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.

* Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.

* Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.

* The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.

* Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)

* Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.

* In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.

* Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.

* CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.

===Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings===

* CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.

* As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.

* The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.

==Opportunities outside the licenses==

There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.

* Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.

* Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.

* Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.

* Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.

* Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and (on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs [[Before Licensing#Make_sure_you_have_the_rights]]). CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.