Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Commercial Rights Reserved

2012-12-07T09:59:02Z

G. Hagedorn: /* Is there a deadline? Why? */

''This is a active proposal for the treatment of the NonCommercial licenses, as of November 2012. It is still just a proposal and may not ultimately reflect the decision of Creative Commons.''

One proposal still being considered for the NonCommercial licenses is renaming it to "Commercial Rights Reserved". This proposal was brought up already 2008 on the community list <ref name="hancock">Terry Hancock, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2008-August/004094.html]: "But the principle reason for having such a limitation is that the work itself IS "commercial" and that the author of the work wants to "retain commercial rights" in the work.

IOW, the name of the license is user-rights centric, but the choice of license is author-rights centric. Thus, from the author's PoV, the name creates confusion, and that probably means that errors are made in selecting a license.

Since the "non-commercial license" is really the "license of choice for commercial authors", this is indeed ironic.

One solution might be to rename the license -- it could be called "commercial-rights-reserved" (CR), for example."</ref> and further discussed in detail on the license list early this year<ref name="hagedorn">Gregor Hagedorn, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006648.html]: "to avoid the "positive feeling" of the NC phrase. In my experience many who have no commercial interest choose the NC license because they believe it is the more valuable commons, the one that they would like to see. They are not aware of the practical differences between non-commercial and non-profit or charity work."</ref>.

The proposal is for a simple renaming of the "NonCommercial" license element, without any change in the definition of what it covers. However, despite its limited scope, it has several possible benefits.

A criticism of the NC licenses is that many licensors choose them without understanding exactly what the license element means—and because of this, the license may be used by many more licensors than would otherwise want its conditions. Renaming it to something that more accurately reflects the operation of the license may ensure that it is not unintentionally used by licensors who intend something different.

==What's wrong with "NonCommercial"?==

NonCommercial seems like a simple description, but it is open to many possible misunderstandings. The NonCommercial licenses are frequently more difficult to explain to potential licensors—in part because people already have ideas about what "non-commercial" means, which don't always line up exactly with what the license does.

Some licensors choose NC for the sole reason than that they have no intention of using their own work commercially. They don't intend on ever selling or profiting from their work, and haven't thought about the impact of their choice beyond that. These individual choices wouldn't be too unfortunate if not for the broader effects on the commons: many don't realize that choosing an NC license also means their work becomes incompatible with a huge body of work under licenses such as Attribution-ShareAlike, and prevents many uses that licensors might have wanted to allow.

Many people also misunderstand "NonCommercial" to be a statement of intent that no one may ever make a commercial use of the work, which isn't true. First of all, the licensors themselves may choose to release under other licenses, and many do. (In fact, many licensors choose NonCommercial so that they may also charge fees to users who want different license terms.) Secondly, even under an NC license, companies and other generally commercial organizations might still use the work for noncommercial purposes. Finally, under any CC license, fair use, fair dealing, and other limitations on copyright are still applicable—so parodies, quotations, simply using the ideas contained in a work, and other uses that don't require a license are unaffected by the choice of a NonCommercial license.

==What's so great about "Commercial Rights Reserved"?==

"Commercial Rights Reserved" seems a little harder to understand—but it's also harder to misunderstand. It's a more mechanical description of what the license does, without too many other related ideas associated with it confusing the matter. (When you use a NonCommercial license, you are saying that you the licensor reserve the right to make money from the work for yourself, but you're giving most of the other rights away.) The phrase sounds a little bit awkward and lawyerish, and you have to think about it a bit longer before deciding to use it—ut that lack of instant appeal may be a positive thing.

There are a lot of passionately-held ideas around what "commercial" culture is. "NonCommercial" sounds like a rejection of a lot of the ideas that people find most frustrating about the current default full-copyright culture, and that initial appeal is difficult to get beyond when you want to explain the actual practical effect of using the license. And for licensors who are more commercially-minded themselves, "NonCommercial" has a different set of associations—as though using a "NonCommercial" license means that it stifles competition and protects the interests they do have in a way that the more open licenses wouldn't, which is not always correct on further examination.

"Commercial Rights Reserved" also parallels the well-known phrase "all rights reserved", which makes it easier to think about what the license does in comparison to the default operation of copyright.

Changing the name this way would change the focus from a statement about what the license isn't to a statement about what it is: negative to positive. Some people think this is more straightforward. The rename would also place the focus more on the position of the licensor, which is the important part of the operation of the NC licenses, rather than on the work. When a licensor chooses this license, commercial rights are reserved to the licensor. The licensor gets a monopoly on commercial uses of the work by reserving the right to sell it, collect royalties on it, and get advertising revenue from it. The work itself may or may not be "NonCommercial", depending on whether the licensor has chosen to exercise those rights.

And finally, this name would help to answer a common question: how do you make money from NC works? By licensing the reserved rights separately. Dual-licensing is often confusing, especially when a work is licensed under both an NC license and another license (from CC or otherwise) that allows for commercial use, or that is only available for purchase. Licensors haven't taken the work out of the commercial sphere entirely by using this license—they are simply saying that those rights are not released, and if you want them, you must make a separate arrangement. (Of course, some NC licensors are not open to any such arrangement. But many are.) Those who want to be paid for their work may even like a name suggesting that commercial rights may be available for the right price.

==What's terrible about it? And what would happen if CC renamed the license?==

That's where your feedback comes in! But we've heard some arguments already, as well as come up with some of our own. Here are some, but comments and additional considerations are welcome on the [[Talk:Commercial Rights Reserved|Discussion page]] and on the mailing lists.

Probably, there would be some confusion about what the difference was between "NC" and "CRR". We'd try to address it with messaging and really easily findable help pages, but it's pretty much inevitable that some people would be completely befuddled. That is, even more so than they already are.

It would require a lot of communication and messaging around the new name so that people understood what it was and what the (non-)difference was between CRR and NC. NonCommercial has a lot of mindshare: people have heard of it, they know about it, they have at least a vague idea what it is, while the phrase "Commercial Rights Reserved" is nowhere near as familiar. It could confuse both people who are new to CC and people who are already users of the NC licenses.

Many existing materials (and URLs) refer to "NonCommercial", and it would take a lot of effort to go through and change these materials to reflect the new name.

It's possible that even after huge efforts toward rebranding and remessaging, nothing useful would happen: people would keep on using the licenses exactly as before, with the exact same misunderstandings. The NC name is also stuck in people's minds: it's possible that people would continue to use that name even if the license chooser didn't use it. Additionally, many platforms do not update their own license options, and new works would continue to be released under licenses using the old name, continuing to send mixed messages. It's also possible that some users would be so confused by the switch and what it meant that they would just abandon CC licensing altogether!

Some people also think that the icon would no longer make sense with the new name, and CC would have to find another one, which would have its own recognition and messaging problems.

==Is there a deadline? Why?==

We intend to have a final decision on the naming of the license before the final publication of the 4.0 licenses, around the end of 2012.

A rename wouldn't affect the actual license text itself<ref name="text">(Well, kind of. It would affect the definition of "license elements", which currently refers to "NonCommercial". But that's it.)</ref>, but we think it would be confusing to launch version 4.0 of the NC licenses with one name and then change its name in the future; it is much easier for people to understand what has happened if we were to rename when the license is versioned. In order to do that, then, we have to have a decision in advance so that FAQs and other messaging can be written to explain the change.

==Don't a lot of these arguments hold for NoDerivatives also?==

Yes, to some extent. ND has never attracted anywhere near as much attention as NC, though, and the misunderstandings around it don't tend to have as much impact, so we're only considering NC for renaming right now.

==So what are you asking?==

The CC staff can sit in a tiny room and debate a name change, but it would be foolish to make a change that's supposed to do something useful for public messaging without consulting the CC community. So here are two questions to focus the discussion:

#What arguments for or against should we be thinking of that aren't included here?
#Is the name change a good idea or a bad idea? Why?

==Footnotes==
<references />

Talk:Commercial Rights Reserved

2012-12-07T09:42:19Z

G. Hagedorn:

Pro the proposal: The proposal is meant to reduce the attractiveness of the non-free NC licenses. NC licenses are incompatible with free licenses and the uninformed choice of these licenses creates problems for free culture projects. NC licenses are not in the yellow, they are in the red spectrum of a free to non-free CC license spectrum (visualized e.g. [http://foter.com/blog/files/2012/11/Foter.com_infographic_CC.jpg here]). The argument giving against this change, that some people may be confused and may require further information (which of course may fail to reach some), is really an argument in favor of the change: Communication and learning about the true function of the NC licenses (i.e. protecting commercial income from works, not building a "non-commercial-commons") is at the heart of the proposed name change. The effects of this communication will of course be delayed by sites that do not immediately update their license chooser, but a delay is better than perpetuation of the current situation. --[[User:G. Hagedorn|G. Hagedorn]] ([[User talk:G. Hagedorn|talk]]) 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Commercial Rights Reserved

2012-12-07T08:27:44Z

G. Hagedorn: Created page with "Pro the proposal: The proposal is meant to reduce the attractiveness of the non-free NC licenses. NC licenses are incompatible with free licenses and the uninformed choice of ..."

Pro the proposal: The proposal is meant to reduce the attractiveness of the non-free NC licenses. NC licenses are incompatible with free licenses and the uninformed choice of these licenses creates problems for free culture projects. NC licenses are not in the yellow, they are in the red spectrum of a free to non-free CC license spectrum (visualized e.g. [http://foter.com/blog/files/2012/11/Foter.com_infographic_CC.jpg here]). That people may be confused and may require further information (which of course may fail to reach some) is an argument in favor of the change: Communication and learning about the true function of the NC licenses (i.e. protecting commercial income from works, not building a "non-commercial-commons") is at the heart of the proposed name change. The effects of this communication will of course be delayed by sites that do not immediately update their license chooser, but a delay is better than perpetuation of the current situation. --[[User:G. Hagedorn|G. Hagedorn]] ([[User talk:G. Hagedorn|talk]]) 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:NC ND discussion

2012-12-07T07:49:22Z

G. Hagedorn: Created page with "While the '''deeds and license chooser''' is a valuable tool it is integrated on few tools. Most CC license application occurs through external license chooser (youtube, flick..."

While the '''deeds and license chooser''' is a valuable tool it is integrated on few tools. Most CC license application occurs through external license chooser (youtube, flickr, etc.). For example flickr which suggests None as first choice, BY-NC-SA as second, two other NC follow, the free licenses BY and BY-SA are 5th and 6th in a list of 7. Many more license application on websites occur by imitating the license chosen by peers. '''Conclusion:''' changes to the deeds and license chooser (as well as other supporting communication on the CC web pages) will reach only a very limited audience. A large part of this audience are insiders involved in CC. Any action that desires to encourage free licenses over non-free ones should concentrate on how a larger proportion of the majority of licensors can be reached. --[[User:G. Hagedorn|G. Hagedorn]] ([[User talk:G. Hagedorn|talk]]) 07:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Commercial Rights Reserved

2012-12-06T22:05:13Z

G. Hagedorn: citing proposals in chronological order, small typo

''This is a active proposal for the treatment of the NonCommercial licenses, as of November 2012. It is still just a proposal and may not ultimately reflect the decision of Creative Commons.''

One proposal still being considered for the NonCommercial licenses is renaming it to "Commercial Rights Reserved". This proposal was brought up already 2008 on the community list <ref name="hancock">Terry Hancock, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2008-August/004094.html]: "But the principle reason for having such a limitation is that the work itself IS "commercial" and that the author of the work wants to "retain commercial rights" in the work.

IOW, the name of the license is user-rights centric, but the choice of license is author-rights centric. Thus, from the author's PoV, the name creates confusion, and that probably means that errors are made in selecting a license.

Since the "non-commercial license" is really the "license of choice for commercial authors", this is indeed ironic.

One solution might be to rename the license -- it could be called "commercial-rights-reserved" (CR), for example."</ref> and further discussed in detail on the license list early this year<ref name="hagedorn">Gregor Hagedorn, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006648.html]: "to avoid the "positive feeling" of the NC phrase. In my experience many who have no commercial interest choose the NC license because they believe it is the more valuable commons, the one that they would like to see. They are not aware of the practical differences between non-commercial and non-profit or charity work."</ref>.

The proposal is for a simple renaming of the "NonCommercial" license element, without any change in the definition of what it covers. However, despite its limited scope, it has several possible benefits.

A criticism of the NC licenses is that many licensors choose them without understanding exactly what the license element means—and because of this, the license may be used by many more licensors than would otherwise want its conditions. Renaming it to something that more accurately reflects the operation of the license may ensure that it is not unintentionally used by licensors who intend something different.

==What's wrong with "NonCommercial"?==

NonCommercial seems like a simple description, but it is open to many possible misunderstandings. The NonCommercial licenses are frequently more difficult to explain to potential licensors—in part because people already have ideas about what "non-commercial" means, which don't always line up exactly with what the license does.

Some licensors choose NC for the sole reason than that they have no intention of using their own work commercially. They don't intend on ever selling or profiting from their work, and haven't thought about the impact of their choice beyond that. These individual choices wouldn't be too unfortunate if not for the broader effects on the commons: many don't realize that choosing an NC license also means their work becomes incompatible with a huge body of work under licenses such as Attribution-ShareAlike, and prevents many uses that licensors might have wanted to allow.

Many people also misunderstand "NonCommercial" to be a statement of intent that no one may ever make a commercial use of the work, which isn't true. First of all, the licensors themselves may choose to release under other licenses, and many do. (In fact, many licensors choose NonCommercial so that they may also charge fees to users who want different license terms.) Secondly, even under an NC license, companies and other generally commercial organizations might still use the work for noncommercial purposes. Finally, under any CC license, fair use, fair dealing, and other limitations on copyright are still applicable—so parodies, quotations, simply using the ideas contained in a work, and other uses that don't require a license are unaffected by the choice of a NonCommercial license.

==What's so great about "Commercial Rights Reserved"?==

"Commercial Rights Reserved" seems a little harder to understand—but it's also harder to misunderstand. It's a more mechanical description of what the license does, without too many other related ideas associated with it confusing the matter. (When you use a NonCommercial license, you are saying that you the licensor reserve the right to make money from the work for yourself, but you're giving most of the other rights away.) The phrase sounds a little bit awkward and lawyerish, and you have to think about it a bit longer before deciding to use it—ut that lack of instant appeal may be a positive thing.

There are a lot of passionately-held ideas around what "commercial" culture is. "NonCommercial" sounds like a rejection of a lot of the ideas that people find most frustrating about the current default full-copyright culture, and that initial appeal is difficult to get beyond when you want to explain the actual practical effect of using the license. And for licensors who are more commercially-minded themselves, "NonCommercial" has a different set of associations—as though using a "NonCommercial" license means that it stifles competition and protects the interests they do have in a way that the more open licenses wouldn't, which is not always correct on further examination.

"Commercial Rights Reserved" also parallels the well-known phrase "all rights reserved", which makes it easier to think about what the license does in comparison to the default operation of copyright.

Changing the name this way would change the focus from a statement about what the license isn't to a statement about what it is: negative to positive. Some people think this is more straightforward. The rename would also place the focus more on the position of the licensor, which is the important part of the operation of the NC licenses, rather than on the work. When a licensor chooses this license, commercial rights are reserved to the licensor. The licensor gets a monopoly on commercial uses of the work by reserving the right to sell it, collect royalties on it, and get advertising revenue from it. The work itself may or may not be "NonCommercial", depending on whether the licensor has chosen to exercise those rights.

And finally, this name would help to answer a common question: how do you make money from NC works? By licensing the reserved rights separately. Dual-licensing is often confusing, especially when a work is licensed under both an NC license and another license (from CC or otherwise) that allows for commercial use, or that is only available for purchase. Licensors haven't taken the work out of the commercial sphere entirely by using this license—they are simply saying that those rights are not released, and if you want them, you must make a separate arrangement. (Of course, some NC licensors are not open to any such arrangement. But many are.) Those who want to be paid for their work may even like a name suggesting that commercial rights may be available for the right price.

==What's terrible about it? And what would happen if CC renamed the license?==

That's where your feedback comes in! But we've heard some arguments already, as well as come up with some of our own. Here are some, but comments and additional considerations are welcome on the [[Talk:Commercial Rights Reserved|Discussion page]] and on the mailing lists.

Probably, there would be some confusion about what the difference was between "NC" and "CRR". We'd try to address it with messaging and really easily findable help pages, but it's pretty much inevitable that some people would be completely befuddled. That is, even more so than they already are.

It would require a lot of communication and messaging around the new name so that people understood what it was and what the (non-)difference was between CRR and NC. NonCommercial has a lot of mindshare: people have heard of it, they know about it, they have at least a vague idea what it is, while the phrase "Commercial Rights Reserved" is nowhere near as familiar. It could confuse both people who are new to CC and people who are already users of the NC licenses.

Many existing materials (and URLs) refer to "NonCommercial", and it would take a lot of effort to go through and change these materials to reflect the new name.

It's possible that even after huge efforts toward rebranding and remessaging, nothing useful would happen: people would keep on using the licenses exactly as before, with the exact same misunderstandings. The NC name is also stuck in people's minds: it's possible that people would continue to use that name even if the license chooser didn't use it. Additionally, many platforms do not update their own license options, and new works would continue to be released under licenses using the old name, continuing to send mixed messages. It's also possible that some users would be so confused by the switch and what it meant that they would just abandon CC licensing altogether!

Some people also think that the icon would no longer make sense with the new name, and CC would have to find another one, which would have its own recognition and messaging problems.

==Is there a deadline? Why?==

A rename wouldn't affect the actual license text itself<ref name="text">(Well, kind of. It would affect the definition of "license elements", which currently refers to "NonCommercial". But that's it.)</ref>, but we intend to have a final decision on the naming of the license before the final publication of the 4.0 licenses, around the end of 2012.

We think it would be confusing to launch version 4.0 of the NC licenses with one name and then change its name in the future; it is much easier for people to understand what has happened if we were to rename when the license is versioned. In order to do that, then, we have to have a decision in advance so that FAQs and other messaging can be written to explain the change.

==Don't a lot of these arguments hold for NoDerivatives also?==

Yes, to some extent. ND has never attracted anywhere near as much attention as NC, though, and the misunderstandings around it don't tend to have as much impact, so we're only considering NC for renaming right now.

==So what are you asking?==

The CC staff can sit in a tiny room and debate a name change, but it would be foolish to make a change that's supposed to do something useful for public messaging without consulting the CC community. So here are two questions to focus the discussion:

#What arguments for or against should we be thinking of that aren't included here?
#Is the name change a good idea or a bad idea? Why?

==Footnotes==
<references />

4.0/Sandbox

2012-08-29T17:24:38Z

G. Hagedorn: /* Termination */

'''This page is designed as a gathering place for suggestions from the community. If you have an idea for an issue that is not yet addressed in one of the issue pages linked from the [[4.0]] page, please follow this process:'''

:# Review the existing issue pages to see if your new idea would fit on an existing page. If so, feel free to add it yourself.
:# Please refer to the [[Legalcode_errata | Legal Code Errata]]<ref> This page contains a list of errors and typos in the licenses. CC will be making changes in 4.0 to correct these problems (assuming the problematic text remains in 4.0).</ref> page to see if your concern is addressed here.
:# If the issue is not already addressed, please refer to the [[License_Versions | License Versions]] page to review issues debated in prior versions and the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/ CC license discuss archives].<ref>TK</ref> If you want to re-open a conversation on an issue or proposal debated in a prior versioning effort, please summarize and link to that prior discussion, indicating why the issue ought be revisited.
:# If your issue is not adequately covered, you can't find a proper home on these pages, or you would prefer that HQ decide where it best fits on the wiki, please add the issue in the relevant section below.

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==
'''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.

'''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. Please see the [[4.0/Sandbox#Additional_permissions_framework|Additional terms category]] below for a proposal allowing the addition of other terms that could cover specialized disclaimer and limitation language.

== Collecting societies ==
'''Treatment in 4.0d2:''' Unchanged in d2. Please note that based on input from our affiliates in Europe, CC is looking harder at situations involving extended collective licensing arrangements. This review is still underway, and we expect to submit a proposal for consideration to the license discussion list shortly following publication of d2.

''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''
* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006645.html Suggested improvements for Attribution-Share Alike 4.0+ section 3.e.:] Basically only waive license fees if your licensee would benefit in a monetary way as a licensee.
** Also proposed Jan 2008: [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2008-January/006287.html Thoughts on new wording RE collection societies etc.]
** '''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' The language has been greatly simplified but has the same intended scope and operation as 3.0. Among other things, we removed references to reservation of commercial rights in the NC licenses since those licenses do not give permission to use the licensed work for commercial purposes.

* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006789.html Suggested provision only waiving collecting society rights in non-NC licenses and explicitly reserving collecting society rights in NC licenses."]
** '''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' Not addressed because collecting societies only collect for commercial uses and NC licenses do not license commercial use.

* Allow collecting societies to collect royalties even where arrangements are otherwise waivable. Specific language proposed with supporting arguments on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006880.html license-discuss.]
** '''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' Not addressed because it seems to undermine the permissions being granted by the license if licensor can both encourage free permission via a CC license and voluntarily collect royalties from those same uses simultaneously. But if collecting society can and will still collect even if licensor is not a member, this may need to be addressed in the licenses.

== Choice of law and enforcement issues ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== Drafting language and style ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== NoDerivs condition ==
ND has not been nearly as discussed as [[4.0/NonCommercial|NC]], but it has the same problems of non-freeness and probable over-use. Some of the NC proposals (eg rebranding, dropping, or only keeping one instance of) have ND analogues that ought be separately and thoroughly evaluated.

Other ND issues:
* Should there be a clarification of what qualifies as "modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats"? For example, "algorithmic reductions of the color depth of still or moving images" in case printing in greyscale or b&w is not unambigously an "other media" or "format" unto itself? Proposed at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006530.html

== (Font) Embedding Issues ==
This issue comes from the field of font licensing: if you release a font under a CC-SA license, do all users who embed the font in their PDF documents have to put their PDFs under CC-SA as well?

The CC general counsel seems to believe that they do not. The German legal counsel seems to believe that the font creator can use a "font exception" (known from GNU), number 8. of the license notwithstanding.

I tend to see it differently, as do the vast majority of type designers and font publishers; their postition wrt font embedding is very clear and many of them have updated their license agreements to allow font embedding under restrictive terms (subsetting required etc.).

I'm coming from the font side of this, but I can imagine that there are many more fields, where this "if you modify the work itself, you need to reciprocate, if you just use it as it's supposed to be used without modifications, mere embedding/aggregating do not legally force you to use CC-SA" would be beneficial.

==Fair use baseline==

"CC 4.0 could promote fair use by guaranteeing fair use internationally. Just as the main terms of the CC license are applicable internationally, instead of simply specifying that the CC license doesn’t interfere with or supersede one’s common law or statutory fair use or fair dealing rights (because, you know, how could it?), the CC licenses could guarantee some uncontentious and shared subset of fair use/fair dealing rights as part of the license."

Above from http://blog.tommorris.org/post/14114334627/creative-commons-4-0-proposal-fair-use-baseline and discussion at https://plus.google.com/110114902730268262477/posts/PTnqvZHKEBT

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

Discussed in cc-licenses thread http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6453

Which freedoms gained?
* A particular condition (NC) is dropped after time (eg BY-NC-SA work becomes available under BY-SA in a specified year)
** This being intended as a replacement to current NC-licensing, i.e. CC 4.0 only offer NC licencing with a time-limited NC-condition, thus continuing to support desire for NC, but limit its attractiveness, changing BY-NC to BY or BY-NC-SA to BY-SA after 5, 10 etc. years
* All conditions dropped after time (eg work under any CC license also becomes available under CC0 in a specified year)

Mechanism?
* Time out of conditions built into all CC licenses, or those specifically to which relevant condition (eg NC) applies; eg part of using BY-NC-ND 4.0 is that work is available under CC0 after 28 years.
* Specific time-out duration is up to licensor; support built into license deed, license name and equivalent URLs, eg BY-NC(14)-SA for condition expires 14 years after publication or BY-NC(until-2017)-SA for year condition expires. This supports automatic discovery of originally closed-content licenced works that have become open content in the meantime.
* No specific support for time-out of conditions built into license, but documented, perhaps encouraged in license chooser, means of stipulating a work's availability with more freedoms after some time duration

In the wild examples:
* BY-NC-SA, CC0 after 5 years https://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/inconstant-moon-update-cc-by-nc-sa/
* Unmitigated copyright, CC BY after 2 years http://rechten.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2010/werkenau/boek_werkgever_en_auteursrecht.pdf mentioned in http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006502.html
* Practice of reviewing works 14 years after published, dedicating some or all to public domain http://everybodyslibraries.com/2012/01/01/public-domain-day-2012-five-things-we-can-do-in-the-us/

Related, abandoned mechanisms:
* http://web.archive.org/web/20021222180218/http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright and http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/06/07/ghostscript-free-now/ both discussed at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006454.html

*Pros:
** Grants more freedoms to licensees sooner than waiting for expiration of copyright term.
** Gives more public visibility to the creator community's perception on copyright terms duration
*Cons:
**Increases license complexity.
**CC+ mechanism already exists for licensors who want to grant more permissions beyond standard license terms.
*Other comments:

==Additional terms framework ==
* '''Treatment in 4.0d2:''' Simplified language carried over from 3.0. Importantly, we have retained Section 8(e) from 3.0 and clarified how the CC license operates with other agreements or understandings. CC cannot prevent licensors from reaching additional agreements related to the work, whether through terms of use or otherwise. But we do feel it important to make clearer that those understandings and agreements are separate and independent of the CC license itself, and where those conflict as regards use of the work itself, the terms of the CC license control. Note also that the final CC notice specifies that as a matter of trademark, CC’s logos and trademarks cannot be used in connection with a modified license or those other understandings and agreements.

Occasionally, there is a need to attach additional terms to a licensed work. A [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-February/006713.html proposal] for dealing the issue was raised on license-discuss.

The GPL dealt with this in v.3 with the following provision:

''Additional permissions are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.''

''When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.''

Essentially, this does three things:

# Gives licensors/copyright holders (not licensees!) formal permission to create additional permissions.
#Explains when and to what extent the additional permissions apply (either to part of the program, or the whole).
# Creates a mechanism for *removing* additional permissions, in case such removal is necessary (primarily for compatibility purposes).

* '''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' CC has not made a proposal in the first draft, but believes that such a provision merits discussion and a proposal for the next license draft. GPL’s provision may provide a starting point for a proposal.

==Termination==
'''Treatment in 4.0d2:''' Remains unchanged, with automatic termination still applying in the event license conditions are violated. However, this remains an open item for discussion between d2 and d3, as we explore more concertedly the inclusion of a cure period or similar provision more in line with those found in the [http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/index.txt MPL 2.0] and [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Gnu GPL 3.0].

* Relax termination provision. Any minor mistake that would result in the license compliance would lead to termination. The license says " terminate automatically upon any breach" (taken from CC BY 3.0 Unported). Any licensee is banned from using the work again, even to correct his mistake. This is too harsh, given that when a licensee wants to post something to a blog, wiki, or an SNS, there are a large number of things he needs to do. Quick correction to comply with the license should be accepted if nothing else. Please also see the termination criteria for [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv3] (Art.8) and [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GFDL v1.2] (Art 9). These languages were introduced by the latest revision, before which the criteria was as harsh as the CC licenses'.

* Consider having a GPLv3-style compliance window.
** Copyright is very much subject to interpretation of grey areas (e.g. fair use). And CC-licensed works are very often mashed and remashed to the point where it is very difficult to ensure that you are complying with the attribution requirements of every single author.
** Does not make sense in the context of culture as many cultural products are valuable for very short timeframes (think photo's documenting a current event). Given this non-compliance should lead to termination immediately.
** both of the above are from [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006806.html this thread] on license-discuss.

* Consider not immediately terminating people who failed to attribute properly when the attribution required is not very clear.
**When title, name of an author, etc. are not supplied, one does not have to include those elements in the attribution. This seemingly simple and clear rule is not very easy to interpret in real contexts. Think, for example, a Flickr page [http://www.flickr.com/photos/46799485@N00/4394306288/] where the user has both account name and what looks like his real name. Which are the names of the author of the work to be attributed? Is there a chance that the user is merely a Licensor and not an author? We often find photos with titles made of some serial number and prefix. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/46799485@N00/7287338646/]. Is title "supplied" here? And think what is the notice referring to the notice on that page. Is the text "some rights reserved" the only such notice? How about a tiny icon representing a CC-BY license? How about the word "Attribution" that appears when you put the mouse over that icon? And then there are questions about copyright notices and notice referring to warranty disclaimers. At the bottom of a Flickr page is copyright notice by Yahoo! and a link to, among other things, its terms of use, which include warranty disclaimer. Are these something to be included as a part of attribution? That is probably up to the relationship between Yahoo! and the Flickr user, mainly defined by the Flickr's terms of use. A provider of content-sharing platform like Yahoo! may play in some instance the role of Licensor, and in other instances, the provider is a mere third-party. Careful examination of Flickr's terms of use may reveal an answer to that particular question, if one can read the terms of use in English.
**The challenge could be greater with voluminous works, audio, video, video games, etc. It is easy to fail to detect all the elements for attribution. Are authors' names supplied when a talk-show style podcast introduces all the panelists? Which names among the end credits are authors, and which are not?
**Failure to answer those questions all correctly would lead to wrong attribution, which in turn results in license termination. That is too restrictive a condition to promote remix and reuse.
**Major failure for compliance is related to attribution requirements. Ver. 4.0 draft 1 is a lot easier to comply, because of the "reasonableness" standard and consolidation of various requirements into a list format. But my suspicion is that it could do more.
**A potentially related proposal is to make attribution machine-readable (Proposal 10, [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking]]). This, if introduced certain way, may resolve most the issue discussed here in a very different way.
* A major consideration should be longevity of CC licenses. The solution to cure a terminated license by contacting the licensor will become less and less practical as time goes by. Furthermore many licensors choose to be not contactable right from the beginning (e.g. anonymous Wikipedia contributors).
* Reinstatement and retroactive cure are two separate proposals. A draft proposal for a reinstatement option only:
Section 5 — Term and Termination.
a) This Public License is perpetual for the duration of the term of the underlying copyright or Copyright-like Rights licensed by Licensor. If You fail to comply with any condition of this Public License, this Public License terminates automatically.
b) For the avoidance of doubt:
1. To use the Work without fulfilling all conditions of this Public License you must obtain express approval from Licensor if the use of the Work is not already covered by legal rights you otherwise have.
2. You may choose to fulfill all conditions of this Public License at a later time, upon which the license will be reinstated from this point in time onward. Should you have used the Work without fulfilling all conditions of this Public License in a way that enables the licensor to claim damages or recover cost from You, a reinstatement will not limit the ability of Licensor to claim damages or recover cost for the period in which the Work was used without a license.
3. upon termination of this Public License for failure by You to comply with any of its conditions, this Public License remains in full force and effect for third parties who received the Work or an Adaptation from You so long as they remain in compliance; and
4. Licensor may release the Work under different licensing terms or stop distributing the Work at anytime; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.
c) Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 survive termination of this Public License.

==Language Changes==
Please aggregate small changes to language used in the first draft here. If you are proposing a change to '''defined terms''' or other substantial language, please include the proposal in the relevant topic page on the wiki and do not include it here.

Please remember that language may change through different drafts. The discussion focus for the first draft is high level policy decisions. You may want to save small language suggestions until a later draft.

== Other issues for 4.0 ==
''Please include a description of the issue with links to relevant references where applicable.''

*Explicitly support an open data commons addressing the different requirements of:
** public data providers (protect against abuse & misuse of data products - organisations & individuals credibility & reputations need an assurance) see UK Govt Open Government Licence: "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source;" at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
***NOTE: CC licenses already contain a non-endorsement provision (Section 4b of CC BY v.3), which serves a similar function. CC licenses also preserve moral rights, which would often prevent someone from misrepresenting the licensed content. Together, these two aspects of CC licenses are designed to achieve the same effect of the provision in the OGL. Because they track other existing laws (trademark and moral rights), they do this without introducing extra ambiguity.

**This is not a solution but actually is the cause of the problem, due to two main issues: 1. Because moral rights are very different in different countries, a CC licence may give strong protection in one country, but much weaker in another. So the CC licences are in effect quite different. This is critical in the areas of data licencing, where data providers (as in the UK example) require some protection against misuse. If CC provided some such protection as part of the CC framework, then a genuine common international licence is feasible. 2. Because moral rights are tied up in copyright, trademark,and various areas of legislation, it can take an expert lawyer to work out just what "moral rights" protections are provided under CC. This all becomes too hard, so CC licences are discarded as a viable option. To resolve both these issues, a simple and clear moral rights provision needs to be available under CC, even with a proviso/caveat that it may be subject to limitations under local national legislation.

** public data consumers (mashup & recognition without attribution, as in one of perhaps hundreds of contributors) as in ODbL from http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
***Please see the [[4.0/Attribution and marking|Attribution and marking page]] for specific proposals designed to address this issue.

*Explicitly support open source, with CC licences consistent with GPL & BSD licences.
**This is critical in the computer gaming industry, where sound tracks, imagery & code need to have a single consistent licence which is applicable to the entire mix of components. See the discussion about [[4.0/ShareAlike#Compatibility_with_other_copyleft_licenses | compatibility]] for more on this topic.

*CC-licensed works are not share-able on common platforms. One way to address this issue is to change CC license terms.
** Many content sharing platforms, and even many of the CC-friendly platforms, require that a user uploading a content will grant a license to use the content for unattributed commercial usage, or give some other licenses without obliging them to give proper credits, not to impose an effective TPM, etc. It means that nobody except for rightholders can upload a CC-licensed work to share with others on those platforms. It also means nobody can share any adaptations of a CC-licensed work on those. Just to cite a few examples both Vimeo[http://vimeo.com/terms], and blip.tv[http://blip.tv/tos/] had terms of use, last time CCJP members checked, that made sharing of CC-licensed works (RiP! Remix Manifesto with Japanese subtitles) impossible if the uploading user is not the rightsholder. Flickr [http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html] and some YouTube ([http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=JP&template=terms JP], [http://www.youtube.com/t/terms?gl=GB&hl=en-GB UK]) ToUs seem to have the same conflict with CC licenses.
** Although the problem is widespread, it may be difficult to come up with a good language to grant platform owners additional license permissions and waive some of the obligations.
**NOTE: Relatedly, because CC licenses do not allow sublicensing, anyone other than the rightsholder cannot upload a CC-licensed work to platforms like Facebook. The TOU on Facebook and many other platforms require that the uploader grant a license to the platform for all uploaded content. Other than removing the prohibition against sublicensing in CC licenses (something that would have larger implications), there is probably no way to address this problem in Version 4.0.
*(Consider allowing sub-licensing, for at least adaptations created under BY-SA, but possibly for a lot wider range of uses.) : moved to [[4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations|Treatment of adaptation]] page ([http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FTreatment_of_adaptations&action=historysubmit&diff=54827&oldid=54267 by this edit])

*Consider explicitly introducing an interoperability clause for CC licenses such CC-BY.
**Right now, it is not clear without close examination of a pair of licenses, for example CC-BY-US 2.0 and CC-BY-JP 2.0 licenses, if they have the exact same set of permissions and obligations. Scope of use permitted by one of those licenses may be narrower than the other, in which case the works under those two different licenses are not compatible to a maximum degree.
**NOTE: As a general rule, the basic permissions are aligned across all ported licenses. This is arguably the single most important factor for interoperability. Nonetheless, the ported licenses do introduce complexity into the license suite, which can make it difficult for licensees to understand their obligations under different licenses.

*Consider providing clearer and more explicit guidance/ provisions as to licenses a licensee using a licensed work can choose to release the work or its adaptation. (In other words, make it easier for people to answer this frequent question: "I want to use this CC-licensed work in a particular way. But under which license can I release the work?"
**The CC-BY-SA licenses are clear and explicit which licenses a licensee can choose to release an adaptation, IF the licensee is distributing or publicly performing the adaptation. The licenses are not clearly stated, however, the range of choice when the licensee is handing a copy just to a few people, for example. Absent explicit grant of permissions, we should perhaps assume that it is prohibited to choose a later version of the license or CC Compatible license. Absent explicit requirement, perhaps it is okay to even fully copyright the adaptation.
**"You may not sublicense the Work" is a phrase found in multiple licenses. But such prohibition seem to exist only for a limited type of use - namely, when a licensee "distribute or publicly perform" "the Work". When a licensee shares the work within a small group (which is probably not "distribution" according to CC licenses definition section) or deals with adaptation, there is no such restriction. Does that mean a licensee can sublicense, then? I suppose not, because there is no explicit grant of such permission. But is it arguable in some cases that some implicit grant exist? I don't know the answer to that, but this is at least confusing for non-experts who want to read and understand license.
**But some would say that this issue may be better handled by a FAQ entry than a provision legal code.

* Require releasing the source when releasing a finished product under a CC license, similar to requirements in GPL.
** Determining what counts as "source" in creative works can be very difficult.
** Discussion at [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006741.html this thread] on license discuss and elsewhere on the [[4.0/ShareAlike#Source-requiring_SA | 4.0 wiki]].

*Consider an even clearer labeling of license conditions, esp. regarding place of anti-TPM clause.
**The [[4.0/Draft_1|public draft version 1]] does a great job in organizing license conditions. But it could be improved, it seems. The clause dealing with technological protection measure is currently placed at Section 3 (a)(3) and (b)(3). However, prohibition of TPM that contradicts with license grant is not something people would understand as an attribution requirement. It is better if the anti-TPM clause be separated into something like, say, (c) Technological Protection Measures.
**Another justification for treating anti-TPM clause as a separate subsection is that, judging from email inquiries CC Japan receives, many people mistakenly think that the license deed exhausts the license conditions, and misses additional conditions such as anti-TPM clause. Having a subsection and subsection title would visually clarify that CC-BY-NC-SA is not just about attribution, non-commercial, and share-alike.
**Similarly, if there is going to be a clause like "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." (taken from CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Unported 4.a.), that could be bundled with the anti-TPM clause in the same subsection (its title could be "restriction of recipients' ability to use Licensed Work," for example).
**On a related note, the 4.0/Draft 1 currently place this imposition of restriction of recipients' ability to use Licensed Work in Section 6 (c). The title for the section is Miscellaneous. Given the language that "If You fail to comply with any '''conditions''' of this Public License, this Public License will terminate automatically " (Section 5 (a) emphasis added by me), and that the title for Section 3 is License Conditions, it would perhaps be better to place that part of 6 (c) to Section 3.

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/NonCommercial

2012-01-21T23:33:28Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{4.0 Issue}}


The NonCommmercial (NC) term has for CC's entire history been more popular than ShareAlike and NoDerivatives, the other two optional terms in the CC license suite, though its popularity has slowly but steadily declined.<ref>See chart on slide 8 of the presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"]</ref> The term as it has appeared in all international [[License versions|versions]] thus far (1.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0]</ref> 2.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0]</ref> 2.5,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5]</ref> 3.0<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0]</ref>):
:''You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.'''

This is reflected on NC license deeds as:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license deed (explanation)]</ref>
:''Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.''

Also in the CC license chooser, with the following question:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/choose CC license chooser]</ref>
:''Allow commercial uses of your work? ( ) Yes ( ) No''

In addition to much use, the NC term has attracted much discussion and criticism on two grounds:
# uncertainty as to whether particular uses fall in the scope of the term (currently, digital file sharing is the only type of use explicitly stated to be noncommercial)
# works licensed using the term are not fully free/open and the attractiveness of the term, or of CC itself, could lead to under-use of fully open terms (i.e., CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA)

Several [[Case Law|legal cases]] have involved works under CC licenses containing the NC term.

The popularity of the NC term, and debate around it, indicate that it is an important issue to examine rigorously, and get right (see the main [[4.0|4.0 page]] for context of overall goals) -- which could mean changes in the 4.0 suite, changes outside the licenses themselves, or retaining the exact language used thus far.

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

'''''NC Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is commercial, and/or deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)
* Pros: This is the only possible way to clarify the license. Licensors otherwise can claim they did not intend the liberal rewording. As a consequence, any licensee of a potential "liberal-NC-definition" would face with unmanagable legal risks.
* Cons:
* Other comments: Question; can the wishes of the most conservative of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?
: This may not be necessary. Strictly, the license is very conservative, due to the wide-ranging consequences of using "commercial advantages". The only necessary action is to clarify and explain this better to avoid the common misunderstandings like confusing non-profit commercial activities (where using a work for free does give the non-profit entity commercial advantages) with non-commercial itself.

'''''NC Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Narrow the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most permissive NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is non-commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons: See No. 1 above. Every liberal use of the license would have to validate whether the work has been relicensed from a 3.0 license, and if so, contact every earlier contributor to find out whether they agree with a more liberal definition.
* Other comments: Even if the definition of 'commercial' is not narrowed or broadened, there may be some need to clarify it given widespread confusion; a 2009 CC study found licensors tend to interpret NC liberally. Proposal 10 seeks to define NonCommercial to ensure legal certainty. Question; can the wishes of the most permissive of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?

'''''NC Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Eliminate or re-brand the NC licenses at 4.0 so they do not use the Creative Commons name, or otherwise stand apart.'''
* Pros: Many who have no commercial interest choose the NC license because they believe it is the "more valuable commons", the one that they would like to see advanced. They are not aware of the practical differences between non-commercial and non-profit or charity work, and of the practical problems in using NC-licensed by any organized entity.
* Cons: Increases search and learning costs for new users/potential users. If Creative Commons Corporation were to do this but continue to support NC licences under another brand it would be accused of deception by those in the open licensing world who don't like NC licenses.
* Other comments: The majority (albeit a diminishing majority) of CC works are NC-licensed
* Practical proposal for "otherwise stand apart": change the name and code from Noncommercial/NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved"/"CRR". This expresses more closely the actual terms of the present NC license and indicates that the use of this license is for those who intend to commercially sell their works, rather than the "commercially not interested ones" (which currently may often identify themselves with NC).

'''''NC Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Eliminate one or more (but not all) of the NC licenses from the 4.0 license suite.'''
*'''BY-NC''' [Note: please visit the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page to comment on this proposal.]
*'''BY-NC-SA'''
**Pros: BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are incompatible, creating two corralled reciprocal commons.
** Cons:
** Other comments:
*'''BY-NC-ND'''
**Pros:
** Cons:
** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences. Question: what use cases have emerged for By-NC-ND?

'''''NC Proposal No. 5:''''' [deleted and combined with NC Proposal No. 1 to avoid redundancies]
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:

'''''NC Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Explicitly state that NC licences are non-free, non-libre and non-open licences'''
* Pros: Because 'free' and 'open' are publicly recognised terms with value, making it clear that NC works are not free and open will encourage the use of other licences.
* Cons: The terms 'open content','open gaming' and 'open educational resources' have been used broadly to include NC content. The battle about the meaning of open is just beginning as it is increasingly being appropriated by monopolists for example the publishing companies that claim that their ARR works are ''gratis open access''. Unlikely to satisfy those who think that NC licenses should be eliminated.
* Other comments: A milder form of Proposal 3

'''''NC Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Replace/transform NonCommercial license with/to NonProfit-License'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Non Profit may be impossible to define with legal precision. Incompatibility with works licensed under NC licenses.User confusion about the difference between two similar but not identical terms.

'''''NC Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Provide ways for users to clarify what questionable uses they are willing to allow '''
* Pros: Removes the ambiguity of the NC license
* Cons: Creates a splinted mess of potentially non-compatible sub-licenses. Creates legal uncertainty. What the license means becomes subject to communications outside of the license. Increases transactions costs for the licensor who must make many more decisions.
* Other comments: In educational use, I often want to have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is certainly making a profit. It would be nice if the copyright holder could specify whether they allow cases like this.
* Other comments: This may fall under [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_change_the_terms_of_a_CC_license_or_waive_some_of_its_conditions.3F the waiver options available to licensors] and therefore be unnecessary. ("A licensor may always grant more permissions than are granted by our licenses. The 3.0 licenses specifically contemplate a waiver or consent as long as the waiver or consent is in writing and signed.") In the example above, adding some text about the waiver conditions next to the CC license should suffice. Creating an automated waiver system might be a more useful approach.

'''''NC Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Create a new CC license, NC-EDU, that prohibits non-commercial uses, but allows educational uses.'''

This proposal is explained on the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006436.html cc-licenses list in a post of Dec. 12, 2011] by Brian Carver. The proposed language defining the "educational use" exception is:

an exception for "...performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of teaching activities of an educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction or as part of instructional activities transmitted via digital networks..." Amendments and refinements are welcome.

The license-chooser would also be modified to ask "Permit educational uses?" as a follow-on option to those that select "NonCommercial."

* Pros:
**This does not make the license suite more confusing because many who choose "NonCommercial" do not intend to prevent the use of their work for these educational purposes, but rather wish to prohibit the direct sale of their work. The suggestion is that providing this option would allow those choosing an NC license to better express the intentions they've had all along, making the suite less confusing and a more accurate reflection of user intentions.
**This is a better alternative to doing nothing because currently many individuals choose the NC option and that material is then unavailable, as a practical matter, for educational uses. Those that are inclined to choose NC will not typically choose merely BY or BY-SA, etc. However, they are not typically considering the negative impact on educational uses when they choose NC and would do otherwise if given the option. Every individual that then chose NC-EDU rather than merely NC would thereby increase the material easily re-usable in educational contexts and this would be a massively good thing.
* Cons: license proliferation, undercuts the trend to increasing use of CC By for OER's, shifts definitional uncertainty from problems with defining non-commercial to the even harder problem of defining education/teaching. The definition offered privileges people in developed countries who can pay for formal education rather than those in developing countries who seek to use copyright works for non formal educational use. The name seems seems likely to suffer from the same marketing problem as the development license, potential licensors thought that the license was intended for use by developing countries, rather than by anyone who wanted to allow use in a developing country.
* Other comments:

''''NC Proposal No.10'''' ''Define NC transactionally so that it is legally certain''

Proposed Definition: '''commercial use is the transactional use of the work; that is selling, bartering, or letting the copyright work or including the work in a paid for advertisement (and the like)'''
*Pros: clear, simple, certain,applicable to every possible situation, all over the world. Defining the term non commercial has given rise to a great deal of debate. By contrast all legal systems have definitions of sale, letting, bartering and the like.
*Cons: motivated by legal certainty rather than the sentiments of a user community, it will eliminate a topic of endless discussion from cc community lists, there is the possibility of incompatibility with work licensed under previous versions of the NC license but then how much are NC works remixed?
*Other Comments

''''NC Proposal No.11'''' ''Rename NC to CRR to clarify real function plus reduce incompatibility by providing NC/CRR term only time-limited''

Proposed Definition: The "CRR" = "Commercial rights reserved" license requires all licensees that would have commercial advantages from using a work to negotiate individual contracts with the licensor. The CRR restriction expires after the year named by the licensor in parentheses after the CRR, this may be a maximum of 20 years from the time of licensing.

In version 4.0 CC would not provide a direct successor for CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA, but the CC 4.0 license chooser set would include in 2012:
CC BY-CRR(exp-2017)-SA
CC BY-CRR(exp-2022)-SA
CC BY-CRR(exp-2032)-SA

The CC license chooser would be updated each year to reflect the 5, 10, 20 year terms. Licensors would be free to choose shorter terms, but license legal text contains a clause that allows a maximum duration of such a license is 20 years. Thus CC does not support, in the year 2012, an exp-2042-term (but in 2022 it does).

Legal text ("primarily" dropped, otherwise unchanged): You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works. The maximum duration of the CRR condition is limited to 20 years. The licensor may choose a shorter term however. On January 1 of the year following the year given after the codeword "exp" in the license, the CRR condition is no longer applicable and the license reverts to an CC BY-SA license.

*Pros: Less misunderstanding of the NC/CRR clause as something with primarily positive connotations, no longer mistaken as something that is more desirable than commercial. Time limiting the NC/CRR clause reduces the license incompatibility proliferation. Dropping the distinction between CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-SA reduces the confusion about how to fulfill the commitment in the absence of the SA clause. The license is practical, transparent, and fosters re-use. If the expiration would be given only as a duration ("20 years") licensees would have to research the licensing date, which is often not practical.
*Cons: Time-limiting causes minor problems for websites like blogs where the entire website carries a single license (rather than individual works). However, the owners of the site can change the license each year, giving an increased year.
*Other Comments

''Please add other NC 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.''

*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6444 Some thoughts on non-commercial], thread started by Heather Morrison
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/subject.html#6521 Proposed new language for NC clause], thread started by Heather Morrison

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''
* Presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"] presented some very high level history, considerations, and options for NC in the 4.0 suite.
* Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Morris R, Agosti D, Penev L, Berendsohn W, Hobern D (2011) [http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/abstract/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information.] ZooKeys 150: 127-149. (Authors recommend CC rename/rebrand and add visual and explanatory cues to the NC licenses to distinguish them from fully open licenses, and to pursue clarification of the NC definition, referencing upcoming 4.0 work.)
* [[Defining Noncommercial|Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”]] was published 14 September, 2009; particularly relevant sections include Section 4.1, Import for Creative Commons Noncommercial Licenses, and Section 4.2, Recommendations on Using CC Noncommercial Licenses.
* [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License] is the most widely read critique of the NC term as non-free/open.
* Article by Joshua Benton from the Nieman Journalism Lab dated 8 November, 2011: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/11/wired-releases-images-via-creative-commons-but-reopens-a-debate-on-what-noncommercial-means/ "Wired releases images via Creative Commons but reopens debate on what "noncommercial" means."]
* [http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/09/01/paley-vs-doctorow/ A debate] between free culture advocate Nina Paley and Creative Commons pioneer Cory Doctorow over the NonCommercial licences. Of particular note is Doctorow's distinction between 'industrial' and 'personal' use.
* [http://http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_%28EA-2009-0034%29_Decision_08-12-09_%28w%29.pdf] Appeal Ruling by the United Kingdom Information Appeal Tribunal on commercial use of information in a university. This ruling is not about Creative Commons licenses but shows how a court is likely to approach the issue of whether a public university is engaged in commercial use.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:NonCommercial]]

4.0/NonCommercial

2012-01-21T11:29:01Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{4.0 Issue}}


The NonCommmercial (NC) term has for CC's entire history been more popular than ShareAlike and NoDerivatives, the other two optional terms in the CC license suite, though its popularity has slowly but steadily declined.<ref>See chart on slide 8 of the presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"]</ref> The term as it has appeared in all international [[License versions|versions]] thus far (1.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0]</ref> 2.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0]</ref> 2.5,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5]</ref> 3.0<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0]</ref>):
:''You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.'''

This is reflected on NC license deeds as:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license deed (explanation)]</ref>
:''Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.''

Also in the CC license chooser, with the following question:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/choose CC license chooser]</ref>
:''Allow commercial uses of your work? ( ) Yes ( ) No''

In addition to much use, the NC term has attracted much discussion and criticism on two grounds:
# uncertainty as to whether particular uses fall in the scope of the term (currently, digital file sharing is the only type of use explicitly stated to be noncommercial)
# works licensed using the term are not fully free/open and the attractiveness of the term, or of CC itself, could lead to under-use of fully open terms (i.e., CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA)

Several [[Case Law|legal cases]] have involved works under CC licenses containing the NC term.

The popularity of the NC term, and debate around it, indicate that it is an important issue to examine rigorously, and get right (see the main [[4.0|4.0 page]] for context of overall goals) -- which could mean changes in the 4.0 suite, changes outside the licenses themselves, or retaining the exact language used thus far.

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

'''''NC Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is commercial, and/or deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)
* Pros: This is the only possible way to clarify the license. Licensors otherwise can claim they did not intend the liberal rewording. As a consequence, any licensee of a potential "liberal-NC-definition" would face with unmanagable legal risks.
* Cons:
* Other comments: Question; can the wishes of the most conservative of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?
: This may not be necessary. Strictly, the license is very conservative, due to the wide-ranging consequences of using "commercial advantages". The only necessary action is to clarify and explain this better to avoid the common misunderstandings like confusing non-profit commercial activities (where using a work for free does give the non-profit entity commercial advantages) with non-commercial itself.

'''''NC Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Narrow the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most permissive NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is non-commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons: See No. 1 above. Every liberal use of the license would have to validate whether the work has been relicensed from a 3.0 license, and if so, contact every earlier contributor to find out whether they agree with a more liberal definition.
* Other comments: Even if the definition of 'commercial' is not narrowed or broadened, there may be some need to clarify it given widespread confusion; a 2009 CC study found licensors tend to interpret NC liberally. Proposal 10 seeks to define NonCommercial to ensure legal certainty. Question; can the wishes of the most permissive of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?

'''''NC Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Eliminate or re-brand the NC licenses at 4.0 so they do not use the Creative Commons name, or otherwise stand apart.'''
* Pros: Many who have no commercial interest choose the NC license because they believe it is the "more valuable commons", the one that they would like to see advanced. They are not aware of the practical differences between non-commercial and non-profit or charity work, and of the practical problems in using NC-licensed by any organized entity.
* Cons: Increases search and learning costs for new users/potential users. If Creative Commons Corporation were to do this but continue to support NC licences under another brand it would be accused of deception by those in the open licensing world who don't like NC licenses.
* Other comments: The majority (albeit a diminishing majority) of CC works are NC-licensed
* Practical proposal for "otherwise stand apart": change the name and code from Noncommercial/NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved"/"CRR". This expresses more closely the actual terms of the present NC license and indicates that the use of this license is for those who intend to commercially sell their works, rather than the "commercially not interested ones" (which currently may often identify themselves with NC).

'''''NC Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Eliminate one or more (but not all) of the NC licenses from the 4.0 license suite.'''
*'''BY-NC''' [Note: please visit the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page to comment on this proposal.]
*'''BY-NC-SA'''
**Pros: BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are incompatible, creating two corralled reciprocal commons.
** Cons:
** Other comments:
*'''BY-NC-ND'''
**Pros:
** Cons:
** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences. Question: what use cases have emerged for By-NC-ND?

'''''NC Proposal No. 5:''''' [deleted and combined with NC Proposal No. 1 to avoid redundancies]
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:

'''''NC Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Explicitly state that NC licences are non-free, non-libre and non-open licences'''
* Pros: Because 'free' and 'open' are publicly recognised terms with value, making it clear that NC works are not free and open will encourage the use of other licences.
* Cons: The terms 'open content','open gaming' and 'open educational resources' have been used broadly to include NC content. The battle about the meaning of open is just beginning as it is increasingly being appropriated by monopolists for example the publishing companies that claim that their ARR works are ''gratis open access''. Unlikely to satisfy those who think that NC licenses should be eliminated.
* Other comments: A milder form of Proposal 3

'''''NC Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Replace/transform NonCommercial license with/to NonProfit-License'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Non Profit may be impossible to define with legal precision. Incompatibility with works licensed under NC licenses.User confusion about the difference between two similar but not identical terms.

'''''NC Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Provide ways for users to clarify what questionable uses they are willing to allow '''
* Pros: Removes the ambiguity of the NC license
* Cons: Creates a splinted mess of potentially non-compatible sub-licenses. Creates legal uncertainty. What the license means becomes subject to communications outside of the license. Increases transactions costs for the licensor who must make many more decisions.
* Other comments: In educational use, I often want to have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is certainly making a profit. It would be nice if the copyright holder could specify whether they allow cases like this.
* Other comments: This may fall under [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_change_the_terms_of_a_CC_license_or_waive_some_of_its_conditions.3F the waiver options available to licensors] and therefore be unnecessary. ("A licensor may always grant more permissions than are granted by our licenses. The 3.0 licenses specifically contemplate a waiver or consent as long as the waiver or consent is in writing and signed.") In the example above, adding some text about the waiver conditions next to the CC license should suffice. Creating an automated waiver system might be a more useful approach.

'''''NC Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Create a new CC license, NC-EDU, that prohibits non-commercial uses, but allows educational uses.'''

This proposal is explained on the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006436.html cc-licenses list in a post of Dec. 12, 2011] by Brian Carver. The proposed language defining the "educational use" exception is:

an exception for "...performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of teaching activities of an educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction or as part of instructional activities transmitted via digital networks..." Amendments and refinements are welcome.

The license-chooser would also be modified to ask "Permit educational uses?" as a follow-on option to those that select "NonCommercial."

* Pros:
**This does not make the license suite more confusing because many who choose "NonCommercial" do not intend to prevent the use of their work for these educational purposes, but rather wish to prohibit the direct sale of their work. The suggestion is that providing this option would allow those choosing an NC license to better express the intentions they've had all along, making the suite less confusing and a more accurate reflection of user intentions.
**This is a better alternative to doing nothing because currently many individuals choose the NC option and that material is then unavailable, as a practical matter, for educational uses. Those that are inclined to choose NC will not typically choose merely BY or BY-SA, etc. However, they are not typically considering the negative impact on educational uses when they choose NC and would do otherwise if given the option. Every individual that then chose NC-EDU rather than merely NC would thereby increase the material easily re-usable in educational contexts and this would be a massively good thing.
* Cons: license proliferation, undercuts the trend to increasing use of CC By for OER's, shifts definitional uncertainty from problems with defining non-commercial to the even harder problem of defining education/teaching. The definition offered privileges people in developed countries who can pay for formal education rather than those in developing countries who seek to use copyright works for non formal educational use. The name seems seems likely to suffer from the same marketing problem as the development license, potential licensors thought that the license was intended for use by developing countries, rather than by anyone who wanted to allow use in a developing country.
* Other comments:

''''NC Proposal No.10'''' ''Define NC transactionally so that it is legally certain''

Proposed Definition: '''commercial use is the transactional use of the work; that is selling, bartering, or letting the copyright work or including the work in a paid for advertisement (and the like)'''
*Pros: clear, simple, certain,applicable to every possible situation, all over the world. Defining the term non commercial has given rise to a great deal of debate. By contrast all legal systems have definitions of sale, letting, bartering and the like.
*Cons: motivated by legal certainty rather than the sentiments of a user community, it will eliminate a topic of endless discussion from cc community lists, there is the possibility of incompatibility with work licensed under previous versions of the NC license but then how much are NC works remixed?
*Other Comments

''Please add other NC 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.''

*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6444 Some thoughts on non-commercial], thread started by Heather Morrison
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/subject.html#6521 Proposed new language for NC clause], thread started by Heather Morrison

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''
* Presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"] presented some very high level history, considerations, and options for NC in the 4.0 suite.
* Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Morris R, Agosti D, Penev L, Berendsohn W, Hobern D (2011) [http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/abstract/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information.] ZooKeys 150: 127-149. (Authors recommend CC rename/rebrand and add visual and explanatory cues to the NC licenses to distinguish them from fully open licenses, and to pursue clarification of the NC definition, referencing upcoming 4.0 work.)
* [[Defining Noncommercial|Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”]] was published 14 September, 2009; particularly relevant sections include Section 4.1, Import for Creative Commons Noncommercial Licenses, and Section 4.2, Recommendations on Using CC Noncommercial Licenses.
* [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License] is the most widely read critique of the NC term as non-free/open.
* Article by Joshua Benton from the Nieman Journalism Lab dated 8 November, 2011: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/11/wired-releases-images-via-creative-commons-but-reopens-a-debate-on-what-noncommercial-means/ "Wired releases images via Creative Commons but reopens debate on what "noncommercial" means."]
* [http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/09/01/paley-vs-doctorow/ A debate] between free culture advocate Nina Paley and Creative Commons pioneer Cory Doctorow over the NonCommercial licences. Of particular note is Doctorow's distinction between 'industrial' and 'personal' use.
* [http://http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_%28EA-2009-0034%29_Decision_08-12-09_%28w%29.pdf] Appeal Ruling by the United Kingdom Information Appeal Tribunal on commercial use of information in a university. This ruling is not about Creative Commons licenses but shows how a court is likely to approach the issue of whether a public university is engaged in commercial use.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:NonCommercial]]

4.0/License subject matter

2012-01-11T10:14:36Z

G. Hagedorn: /* Considerations regarding how the license operates with respect to applicable law */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons licenses were designed as copyright licenses, granting permissions to make uses of works that implicate copyright and neighboring rights upon certain conditions. The licenses were also designed to avoid imposing conditions on reuse where permissions are not otherwise required by applicable law.

This page is designed to address discussion topics related to the scope of the international license. In particular:

*There are certain rights very similar to copyright that are not currently licensed (included in the scope of the international license) regardless of where the license operates. One such set of “copyright-like” rights not included in the scope of the international license are sui generis database rights (SGDRs), and there may be others that do not fall within the current definition of work in version 3.0.

*The precise scope of the rights granted in the international license varies depending on the copyright law of the jurisdiction where the license is operating – a form of automatic localization of the license. Accordingly, the scope of the “work” being licensed varies depending on how it is defined under applicable copyright law. </div>

== Defining the licensed rights ==

As noted above, CC licenses were initially designed to address copyright. In version 3.0, the definition of “work” was expanded to include many neighboring rights:
: ''"Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or dramatico-musical work; a choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show; a musical composition with or without words; a cinematographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; a work of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving or lithography; a photographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; a work of applied art; an illustration, map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; a performance; a broadcast; a phonogram; a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work; or a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work.''

As one of the goals for version 4.0 is to craft a license suite that allows use of the work consistent with the expectations of both licensors and licensees (and rights closely related to copyright may impede that), the permissions granted by the licenses may need to account for other laws that grant copyright-like rights in a particular subset of jurisdictions (such as sui generis database rights discussed below). "Copyright-like" rights are those that overlap with the exclusive rights of copyright and are exclusively held by the same person as the copyright.

What should be the limiting principle for choosing which rights to license in 4.0 if more than copyright? How should CC identify and then account for such rights in the licenses recognizing that citing every such statute is likely neither feasible nor advisable? How do we ensure the definition covers rights held by the licensor and not third parties (e.g., publicity rights), or rights that are held by the licensor but not related to or overlapping copyright (e.g., trademark)?

=== Considerations regarding scope of license; other copyright-like rights ===

''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here. In particular, please help CC identify those exclusive rights that exist in your jurisdiction or region that are closely related to, or could interfere with one's ability to exercise, copyright and neighboring rights as expected by licensors or licensees.''

* '''Rights that do not exist yet.''' If in 2025 another copyright-like (gained by creating some fixed expression, not an idea or 3rd party right) right is established, licensees using 4.0-licensed works would already have the permissions necessary to continue using as they had.

== Sui generis database rights (SGDRs) ==

In their current form, CC licenses do not require attribution or compliance with other applicable license conditions where use of a licensed work triggers SGDRs and not copyright.

In version 3.0 of the licenses, CC attempted to harmonize treatment of SGDRs worldwide by neutralizing those rights in jurisdictions where they existed. This was done by explicitly waiving the license conditions with respect to SGDRs in licenses ported to the laws of jurisdictions where SGDRs are granted if only SGDRs are implicated. The international license and ported licenses in jurisdictions without SGDRs do not address those rights directly. The effect of this differing treatment is as noted above - uses of licensed works that only implicate SGDRs do not require compliance with the license conditions.

CC’s treatment of SGDRs has been criticized for the following reasons:

#If someone applies an international license to a database that has SGDRs protection, there is a possibility they are not granting licensees any rights to use the database in a way that implicates SGDRs.<ref> While it may be the case an implied SGDRs license has been granted (in at least some jurisdictions), this may not provide adequate legal certainty for licensees.</ref> Licensees may not realize they could need extra permissions to use a substantial portion of the licensed database, an exclusive right granted database makers in the EU and a few other jurisdictions.
# Some major potential license adopters, [http://share-psi.eu/papers/UK-Licensing.pdf including the UK government], have indicated they are not willing to use CC licenses because our licenses do not affirmatively license SGDRs on par with copyright (i.e., without waiving conditions when only SGDRs exist).

Regardless of whether CC begins to license SGDRs on the same terms as copyright, there is widespread consensus within the CC community on a few basic concepts:
* SGDRs are [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/182#10 bad policy] and have [http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf not proven] to garner the [http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smn/smn40/docs/database-dir_en.pdf economic benefits they were designed to achieve]. Accordingly, CC needs to be careful not to do anything that would be seen as an endorsement of SGDRs or that would have the effect of encouraging compliance with license conditions in jurisdictions where SGDRs do not apply.
* The ported and unported licenses should grant the same permissions to licensees. The differing treatment among EU ports and the unported license is sub-optimal and may cause confusion.

=== Proposals for addressing SGDRs in 4.0 ===

After discussion at the Global Summit in Warsaw, CC [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29639 intends to license SGDRs] SGDRs on the same terms and conditions as copyright and neighboring rights absent yet-to-be-identified, unacceptable consequences. Therefore, the following proposal is the course of action CC is pursuing at this time, though we welcome further debate and discussion. ''Please add your input on the pros and cons of the proposals identified.''

'''''SGDR Proposal No. 1:''''' '''License SGDRs on par with copyright.''' The licenses currently cover copyright and neighboring rights. This option would require amending the legal code to license SGDRs in the same manner. To be clear, just as the license currently operates with respect to copyright and neighboring rights, a license of SGDRs would only take effect in jurisdictions where such rights exist.
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''''SGDR Proposal No. 2:''''' (alternative proposal) '''License SGDRs and waive conditions.''' This would effectively put the unported license in line with the 3.0 EU ports with respect to SGDRs. The licenses would grant permission to use works implicating SGDRs (where SGDRs apply per applicable law only), but the license conditions (BY, NC, NC and/or SA, as applicable) would not apply to those uses unless copyright was also implicated.
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

==Automatic localization of the license==

Regardless of what rights are ultimately covered by the 4.0 license, the scope of the rights being licensed (including the exceptions and limitations that apply) will continue to vary depending on applicable law.

In the international license, the definition of "work" is qualified by Section 8(f) <ref>Section 8(f): "The rights granted under, and the subject matter referenced, in this License were drafted utilizing the terminology of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention (as revised on July 24, 1971). '''These rights and subject matter take effect in the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law includes additional rights not granted under this License, such additional rights are deemed to be included in the License'''; this License is not intended to restrict the license of any rights under applicable law." (emphasis added) </ref>, which explains that the licensed rights and subject matter take effect according to the national implementation of the treaty provisions in the jurisdiction where the license is enforced. This provision is tantamount to an “automatic localization” of the international licenses, whereby the licenses operate differently in various jurisdictions depending on national laws.

There are, however, several instances in the licenses where we arguably depart from this principle, at least under the laws of some jurisdictions. The following is a non-comprehensive list of provisions in the international license that could be construed as modifying the default provided by applicable law.

* Definition of "adaptation" – ‘’[A] work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in time-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.’’ <ref> See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode CC BY] definition for "adaptation." </ref>
*Definition of "collection" – ‘’A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined above) for the purposes of this License.’’<ref>See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode CC BY] definition for "collection."</ref>
*Section 3(e) – ‘’The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats.’’

In the 4.0 international licenses, should we remove any of these provisions that potentially modify applicable law in some cases? Are there other clarifying provisions we should consider adding in order to increase certainty for licensors and licensees as to matters left to interpretation under applicable law?

Note: A different but related proposal about clarifying language for the NC definition is included on the [[4.0/NonCommercial]] page.

===Considerations regarding how the license operates with respect to applicable law===
''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

* '''Relying on applicable local law may make CC licenses dysfunctional in a global context.''' Potentially applicable laws are the law of the countries of residence of each creator or contributor of a work, the law of the countries from which the work or revisions of a work were submitted ("uploaded"), the law of the countries in which the work is being disseminated ("publisher, printer, distribution chain, server location"), the law of the country whose population is being addressed as the audience. In a collaborative Work such as Wikipedia, these can result in dozens of applicable laws, and the lowest common denominator must be determined before a work can be safely re-used. This can amount to prohibitive effort. Contrary to the assumptions above to ''remove'' specifications, CC 4.0 should instead increase the specifications, to increase the scope in which a work can be safely re-used based on the license rather than local specifications.
*: '''Proposal:''' Creative Commons should clarify as many cases as possible to achieve a globally usable unported version. This does not mean that the license makes pretense that these clarifications are complete; it should continue to refer to local law, but specify more cases to achieve safe re-usability. This will be a long term process, one that started in previous versions and should not be reversed by removing clarifications. CC is in a unique advantageous position if it calls upon the experiences of porting into local jurisdictions and tries to fix as many ambiguous or differing positions. Basing CC 3 on the Berne Convention was a major positive step. Adding as many clarifications as possible to CC 4 could be another step.

*'''ShareAlike scope.''' Proposals relating to clarifying the definitions of "adaptation" and "collection" of the SA condition in this regard are further discussed on the [[4.0/ShareAlike]] page.

===Proposals regarding how the licenses operate with respect to applicable law===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''App. Law Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Modify Section 8(f) (or its equivalent) to clarify intended interpretation of license terms and conditions.'''
*Pros:
*Cons:
*Other comments:

''Please add other applicable law 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 these 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 below.''
#Presentation by Judge Jay Yoon at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/iwillbe99/ccl-and-database "Creative Commons Licenses and Databases"]
#CC blog post dated 1 February, 2011: [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 "CC and databases: huge in 2011, what you can do"]
#CC memorandum dated 15 August, 2007: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf "On the treatment of sui generis database rights in Version 3.0 of the Creative Commons Licenses"]
#CC resources about licensing data and databases: [[Data|Frequently asked questions about data]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/License subject matter

2012-01-11T10:08:14Z

G. Hagedorn: /* Automatic localization of the license */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons licenses were designed as copyright licenses, granting permissions to make uses of works that implicate copyright and neighboring rights upon certain conditions. The licenses were also designed to avoid imposing conditions on reuse where permissions are not otherwise required by applicable law.

This page is designed to address discussion topics related to the scope of the international license. In particular:

*There are certain rights very similar to copyright that are not currently licensed (included in the scope of the international license) regardless of where the license operates. One such set of “copyright-like” rights not included in the scope of the international license are sui generis database rights (SGDRs), and there may be others that do not fall within the current definition of work in version 3.0.

*The precise scope of the rights granted in the international license varies depending on the copyright law of the jurisdiction where the license is operating – a form of automatic localization of the license. Accordingly, the scope of the “work” being licensed varies depending on how it is defined under applicable copyright law. </div>

== Defining the licensed rights ==

As noted above, CC licenses were initially designed to address copyright. In version 3.0, the definition of “work” was expanded to include many neighboring rights:
: ''"Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or dramatico-musical work; a choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show; a musical composition with or without words; a cinematographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; a work of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving or lithography; a photographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; a work of applied art; an illustration, map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; a performance; a broadcast; a phonogram; a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work; or a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work.''

As one of the goals for version 4.0 is to craft a license suite that allows use of the work consistent with the expectations of both licensors and licensees (and rights closely related to copyright may impede that), the permissions granted by the licenses may need to account for other laws that grant copyright-like rights in a particular subset of jurisdictions (such as sui generis database rights discussed below). "Copyright-like" rights are those that overlap with the exclusive rights of copyright and are exclusively held by the same person as the copyright.

What should be the limiting principle for choosing which rights to license in 4.0 if more than copyright? How should CC identify and then account for such rights in the licenses recognizing that citing every such statute is likely neither feasible nor advisable? How do we ensure the definition covers rights held by the licensor and not third parties (e.g., publicity rights), or rights that are held by the licensor but not related to or overlapping copyright (e.g., trademark)?

=== Considerations regarding scope of license; other copyright-like rights ===

''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here. In particular, please help CC identify those exclusive rights that exist in your jurisdiction or region that are closely related to, or could interfere with one's ability to exercise, copyright and neighboring rights as expected by licensors or licensees.''

* '''Rights that do not exist yet.''' If in 2025 another copyright-like (gained by creating some fixed expression, not an idea or 3rd party right) right is established, licensees using 4.0-licensed works would already have the permissions necessary to continue using as they had.

== Sui generis database rights (SGDRs) ==

In their current form, CC licenses do not require attribution or compliance with other applicable license conditions where use of a licensed work triggers SGDRs and not copyright.

In version 3.0 of the licenses, CC attempted to harmonize treatment of SGDRs worldwide by neutralizing those rights in jurisdictions where they existed. This was done by explicitly waiving the license conditions with respect to SGDRs in licenses ported to the laws of jurisdictions where SGDRs are granted if only SGDRs are implicated. The international license and ported licenses in jurisdictions without SGDRs do not address those rights directly. The effect of this differing treatment is as noted above - uses of licensed works that only implicate SGDRs do not require compliance with the license conditions.

CC’s treatment of SGDRs has been criticized for the following reasons:

#If someone applies an international license to a database that has SGDRs protection, there is a possibility they are not granting licensees any rights to use the database in a way that implicates SGDRs.<ref> While it may be the case an implied SGDRs license has been granted (in at least some jurisdictions), this may not provide adequate legal certainty for licensees.</ref> Licensees may not realize they could need extra permissions to use a substantial portion of the licensed database, an exclusive right granted database makers in the EU and a few other jurisdictions.
# Some major potential license adopters, [http://share-psi.eu/papers/UK-Licensing.pdf including the UK government], have indicated they are not willing to use CC licenses because our licenses do not affirmatively license SGDRs on par with copyright (i.e., without waiving conditions when only SGDRs exist).

Regardless of whether CC begins to license SGDRs on the same terms as copyright, there is widespread consensus within the CC community on a few basic concepts:
* SGDRs are [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/182#10 bad policy] and have [http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf not proven] to garner the [http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smn/smn40/docs/database-dir_en.pdf economic benefits they were designed to achieve]. Accordingly, CC needs to be careful not to do anything that would be seen as an endorsement of SGDRs or that would have the effect of encouraging compliance with license conditions in jurisdictions where SGDRs do not apply.
* The ported and unported licenses should grant the same permissions to licensees. The differing treatment among EU ports and the unported license is sub-optimal and may cause confusion.

=== Proposals for addressing SGDRs in 4.0 ===

After discussion at the Global Summit in Warsaw, CC [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29639 intends to license SGDRs] SGDRs on the same terms and conditions as copyright and neighboring rights absent yet-to-be-identified, unacceptable consequences. Therefore, the following proposal is the course of action CC is pursuing at this time, though we welcome further debate and discussion. ''Please add your input on the pros and cons of the proposals identified.''

'''''SGDR Proposal No. 1:''''' '''License SGDRs on par with copyright.''' The licenses currently cover copyright and neighboring rights. This option would require amending the legal code to license SGDRs in the same manner. To be clear, just as the license currently operates with respect to copyright and neighboring rights, a license of SGDRs would only take effect in jurisdictions where such rights exist.
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''''SGDR Proposal No. 2:''''' (alternative proposal) '''License SGDRs and waive conditions.''' This would effectively put the unported license in line with the 3.0 EU ports with respect to SGDRs. The licenses would grant permission to use works implicating SGDRs (where SGDRs apply per applicable law only), but the license conditions (BY, NC, NC and/or SA, as applicable) would not apply to those uses unless copyright was also implicated.
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

==Automatic localization of the license==

Regardless of what rights are ultimately covered by the 4.0 license, the scope of the rights being licensed (including the exceptions and limitations that apply) will continue to vary depending on applicable law.

In the international license, the definition of "work" is qualified by Section 8(f) <ref>Section 8(f): "The rights granted under, and the subject matter referenced, in this License were drafted utilizing the terminology of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention (as revised on July 24, 1971). '''These rights and subject matter take effect in the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law includes additional rights not granted under this License, such additional rights are deemed to be included in the License'''; this License is not intended to restrict the license of any rights under applicable law." (emphasis added) </ref>, which explains that the licensed rights and subject matter take effect according to the national implementation of the treaty provisions in the jurisdiction where the license is enforced. This provision is tantamount to an “automatic localization” of the international licenses, whereby the licenses operate differently in various jurisdictions depending on national laws.

There are, however, several instances in the licenses where we arguably depart from this principle, at least under the laws of some jurisdictions. The following is a non-comprehensive list of provisions in the international license that could be construed as modifying the default provided by applicable law.

* Definition of "adaptation" – ‘’[A] work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in time-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.’’ <ref> See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode CC BY] definition for "adaptation." </ref>
*Definition of "collection" – ‘’A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined above) for the purposes of this License.’’<ref>See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode CC BY] definition for "collection."</ref>
*Section 3(e) – ‘’The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats.’’

In the 4.0 international licenses, should we remove any of these provisions that potentially modify applicable law in some cases? Are there other clarifying provisions we should consider adding in order to increase certainty for licensors and licensees as to matters left to interpretation under applicable law?

Note: A different but related proposal about clarifying language for the NC definition is included on the [[4.0/NonCommercial]] page.

===Considerations regarding how the license operates with respect to applicable law===
''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

* '''Relying on applicable local law may make CC licenses dysfunctional in a global context.''' Potentially applicable laws are the law of the countries of residence of each creator or contributor of a work, the law of the countries from which the work or revisions of a work were submitted ("uploaded"), the law of the countries in which the work is being disseminated ("publisher, printer, distribution chain, server location"), the law of the country whose population is being addressed as the audience. In a collaborative Work such as Wikipedia, these can result in dozens of applicable laws, and the lowest common denominator must be determined before a work can be safely re-used. This can amount to prohibitive effort. Contrary to the assumptions above to ''remove'' specifications, CC 4.0 should instead increase the specifications, to increase the scope in which a work can be safely re-used based on the license rather than local specifications.
*: Proposal: Creative Commons should clarify as many cases as possible to achieve a globally usable unported version. This does not mean that the license makes pretense that these clarifications are complete; it should continue to refer to local law, but specify more cases to achieve safe re-usability. This will be a long term process, one that started in previous versions and should not be reversed by removing clarifications. CC is in a unique advantageous position if it calls upon the experiences of porting into local jurisdictions and tries to fix as many ambiguous or differing positions. Basing CC 3 on the Berne Convention was a major positive step. Adding as many clarifications as possible to CC 4 could be another step.

*'''ShareAlike scope.''' Proposals relating to clarifying the definitions of "adaptation" and "collection" of the SA condition in this regard are further discussed on the [[4.0/ShareAlike]] page.

===Proposals regarding how the licenses operate with respect to applicable law===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''App. Law Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Modify Section 8(f) (or its equivalent) to clarify intended interpretation of license terms and conditions.'''
*Pros:
*Cons:
*Other comments:

''Please add other applicable law 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 these 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 below.''
#Presentation by Judge Jay Yoon at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/iwillbe99/ccl-and-database "Creative Commons Licenses and Databases"]
#CC blog post dated 1 February, 2011: [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 "CC and databases: huge in 2011, what you can do"]
#CC memorandum dated 15 August, 2007: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf "On the treatment of sui generis database rights in Version 3.0 of the Creative Commons Licenses"]
#CC resources about licensing data and databases: [[Data|Frequently asked questions about data]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2011-12-27T12:33:04Z

G. Hagedorn: some proposed additions to time-limited, one assumed type elsewhere

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-26T00:48:25Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities

----

'''Description in German:'''

''Offene Naturführer'' sammelt Naturführer und Bestimmungshilfen (sowie ergänzende Lehr- und Lernmaterialien), um diese
* für Jugendliche und Erwachsene,
* für Hobby, Naturschutz, Führungen,
* für eigenständiges und angeleitetes Lernen,
* kostenlos
zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Spektrum reicht von vereinfachten pädagogischen Materialien hin zu Bestimmungshilfen für anspruchsvolle Amateure. Nutzer sollen die Materialien kopieren und verändern dürfen (z. B. um selber Teilschlüssel/Arbeitsblätter für ihre Region, einen Naturpark oder speziell den Schulgarten anpassen zu können) und sie online oder offline – z. B. auf CD gebrannt oder auf dem Mobiltelefon abgespeichert – nutzen können. Dies wird durch die Prinzipien von Science Commons sowie eine offene Lizenz („Creative Commons“) erreicht.
|Mainurl=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|Author=Offene Naturführer Community
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=Bestimmungshilfe; Bestimmungsschlüssel; eLearning; Biodiversität
|License short name=CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, PD, CC0
|CC adoption date=2009
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, InteractiveResource, Data
|Country=Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|importance=
|quality=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/web/Spezial:Suche
|ccfeed=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-21T00:13:59Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities

----

'''Description in German:'''

''Offene Naturführer'' sammelt Naturführer und Bestimmungshilfen (sowie ergänzende Lehr- und Lernmaterialien), um diese
* für Jugendliche und Erwachsene,
* für Hobby, Naturschutz, Führungen,
* für eigenständiges und angeleitetes Lernen,
* kostenlos
zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Spektrum reicht von vereinfachten pädagogischen Materialien hin zu Bestimmungshilfen für anspruchsvolle Amateure. Nutzer sollen die Materialien kopieren und verändern dürfen (z. B. um selber Teilschlüssel/Arbeitsblätter für ihre Region, einen Naturpark oder speziell den Schulgarten anpassen zu können) und sie online oder offline – z. B. auf CD gebrannt oder auf dem Mobiltelefon abgespeichert – nutzen können. Dies wird durch die Prinzipien von Science Commons sowie eine offene Lizenz („Creative Commons“) erreicht.
|Mainurl=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|Author=Offene Naturführer Community
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=Bestimmungshilfe; Bestimmungsschlüssel; eLearning; Biodiversität
|License short name=CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, PD, CC0
|CC adoption date=2009
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, InteractiveResource, Data
|Country=Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|importance=
|quality=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/on/Spezial:Suche
|ccfeed=http://offene-naturfuehrer.de/o/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-11T00:42:26Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities

----

'''Description in German:'''

''Offene Naturführer'' sammelt Naturführer und Bestimmungshilfen (sowie ergänzende Lehr- und Lernmaterialien), um diese
* für Jugendliche und Erwachsene,
* für Hobby, Naturschutz, Führungen,
* für eigenständiges und angeleitetes Lernen,
* kostenlos
zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Spektrum reicht von vereinfachten pädagogischen Materialien hin zu Bestimmungshilfen für anspruchsvolle Amateure. Nutzer sollen die Materialien kopieren und verändern dürfen (z. B. um selber Teilschlüssel/Arbeitsblätter für ihre Region, einen Naturpark oder speziell den Schulgarten anpassen zu können) und sie online oder offline – z. B. auf CD gebrannt oder auf dem Mobiltelefon abgespeichert – nutzen können. Dies wird durch die Prinzipien von Science Commons sowie eine offene Lizenz („Creative Commons“) erreicht.
|Mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|Author=Offene Naturführer Community
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=Bestimmungshilfe; Bestimmungsschlüssel; eLearning; Biodiversität
|License short name=CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, PD, CC0
|CC adoption date=2009
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, InteractiveResource, Data
|Country=Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|importance=
|quality=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/wiki/Spezial:Suche
|ccfeed=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-11T00:40:36Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities

----

'''Description in German:'''

''Offene Naturführer'' sammelt Naturführer und Bestimmungshilfen (sowie ergänzende Lehr- und Lernmaterialien), um diese
* für Jugendliche und Erwachsene,
* für Hobby, Naturschutz, Führungen,
* für eigenständiges und angeleitetes Lernen,
* kostenlos
zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Spektrum reicht von vereinfachten pädagogischen Materialien hin zu Bestimmungshilfen für anspruchsvolle Amateure. Nutzer sollen die Materialien kopieren und verändern dürfen (z. B. um selber Teilschlüssel/Arbeitsblätter für ihre Region, einen Naturpark oder speziell den Schulgarten anpassen zu können) und sie online oder offline – z. B. auf CD gebrannt oder auf dem Mobiltelefon abgespeichert – nutzen können. Dies wird durch die Prinzipien von Science Commons sowie eine offene Lizenz („Creative Commons“) erreicht.
|Mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|Author=Offene Naturführer Community
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=Bestimmungshilfe; Bestimmungsschlüssel; eLearning; Biodiversität
|License short name=CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, PD, CC0
|CC adoption date=2009
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, InteractiveResource, Data
|Country=Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|importance=
|quality=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/wiki/Spezial%3ASuche
|ccfeed=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen&feed=atom
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-11T00:24:40Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities

----

'''Description in German:'''

''Offene Naturführer'' sammelt Naturführer und Bestimmungshilfen (sowie ergänzende Lehr- und Lernmaterialien), um diese
* für Jugendliche und Erwachsene,
* für Hobby, Naturschutz, Führungen,
* für eigenständiges und angeleitetes Lernen,
* kostenlos
zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Spektrum reicht von vereinfachten pädagogischen Materialien hin zu Bestimmungshilfen für anspruchsvolle Amateure. Nutzer sollen die Materialien kopieren und verändern dürfen (z. B. um selber Teilschlüssel/Arbeitsblätter für ihre Region, einen Naturpark oder speziell den Schulgarten anpassen zu können) und sie online oder offline – z. B. auf CD gebrannt oder auf dem Mobiltelefon abgespeichert – nutzen können. Dies wird durch die Prinzipien von Science Commons sowie eine offene Lizenz („Creative Commons“) erreicht.
|Mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|Author=Offene Naturführer Community
|User_Status=Creator
|Tag=Bestimmungshilfe; Bestimmungsschlüssel; eLearning; Biodiversität
|License short name=CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, PD, CC0
|CC adoption date=2009
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, InteractiveResource, Data
|Country=Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|importance=
|quality=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=
|ccfeed=
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-11T00:23:02Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities

----

'''Description in German:'''

''Offene Naturführer'' sammelt Naturführer und Bestimmungshilfen (sowie ergänzende Lehr- und Lernmaterialien), um diese
* für Jugendliche und Erwachsene,
* für Hobby, Naturschutz, Führungen,
* für eigenständiges und angeleitetes Lernen,
* kostenlos
zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Spektrum reicht von vereinfachten pädagogischen Materialien hin zu Bestimmungshilfen für anspruchsvolle Amateure. Nutzer sollen die Materialien kopieren und verändern dürfen (z. B. um selber Teilschlüssel/Arbeitsblätter für ihre Region, einen Naturpark oder speziell den Schulgarten anpassen zu können) und sie online oder offline – z. B. auf CD gebrannt oder auf dem Mobiltelefon abgespeichert – nutzen können. Dies wird durch die Prinzipien von Science Commons sowie eine offene Lizenz („Creative Commons“) erreicht.
|Mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|License short name=CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, PD, CC0
|CC adoption date=2009
|Format=Image, Sound, Text, InteractiveResource, Data
|Country=Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|importance=
|quality=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=
|ccfeed=
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-11T00:03:46Z

G. Hagedorn:

{{Case Study
|importance=
|quality=
|Description=The Open Nature Guides (Offene Naturführer) are a German language site providing identification tools for biological organisms to amateurs and professionals, and users at schools or universities
|Quote=
|Quote_Attribution=
|Image_Header=http://offener-naturfuehrer.de/w/media/logo/OffeneMitmachFaunaNaturFloraEtc.png
|Image_attribution=CC BY SA
|Image_license=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|Mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|Author=
|User_Status=
|Tag=
|License_short_name=CC BY-SA
|Format=Text, Image
|Country=Global
}}
{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|ccportal=
|ccfeed=
|size=3300
}}

Offene Naturführer

2010-12-10T23:56:29Z

G. Hagedorn: Created page with "{{ContentDirectory |mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/ |format=Text, Image, Sound |size=3300 }}"

{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.offene-naturfuehrer.de/
|format=Text, Image, Sound
|size=3300
}}