Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Miakgarlick Creative Commons - User contributions [en] 2026-05-30T12:13:41Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.30.0 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&diff=5345 Frequently Asked Questions 2007-02-27T18:53:41Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* What is a derivative work? */</p> <hr /> <div>Please note that Creative Commons does not provide legal advice, so while this FAQ is designed to be helpful in raising awareness about the use of our licenses, it is by nature not a complete discussion nor a substitute for legal advice. It may not cover important issues that affect you and, depending on your situation, you may wish to consult with a lawyer.<br /> <br /> ===Questions for people thinking about applying a Creative Commons license to their work===<br /> <br /> ====How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work?====<br /> <br /> For online works, you apply a Creative Commons license to a work by [http://creativecommons.org/license/ selecting the license that suits your preferences]. Once you have selected your license, and if you are applying it to an online work, follow the instructions to include the html code in your work. This code will automatically generate the “Some Rights Reserved” button and a statement that your work is licensed under a Creative Commons license, or a “No Rights Reserved” button if you choose to dedicate your work to the public domain. The button is designed to act as a notice to people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed under the applicable Creative Commons license. The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via [http://creativecommons.org/find/ Creative Commons-enabled search engines].<br /> <br /> ====Can I apply a Creative Commons license to an offline work?====<br /> <br /> Yes. For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with a statement such as “This work is licensed under the Creative Commons [insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit [insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.” or insert the applicable license buttons with the same statement and URL link. <br /> <br /> The only difference between applying a Creative Commons license to an offline work and applying it to an online work is that offline works will not include the metadata and, consequently, will not be identified via [http://creativecommons.org/find/ Creative Commons-customized search engines].<br /> <br /> ====How does a Creative Commons license operate?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses give you the ability to dictate how others may exercise your copyright rights—such as the right of others to copy your work, make derivative works or adaptations of your work, to distribute your work and/or make money from your work. They do not give you the ability to restrict anything that is otherwise permitted by exceptions or limitations to copyright—including, importantly, fair use or fair dealing—nor do they give you the ability to control anything that is not protected by copyright law, such as facts and ideas.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses attach to the work and authorize everyone who comes in contact with the work to use it consistent with the license. This means that if Bob has a copy of your Creative Commons-licensed work, Bob can give a copy to Carol and Carol will be authorized to use the work consistent with the Creative Commons license. You then have a license agreement separately with both Bob and Carol.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code). You don’t need to sign anything to get a Creative Commons license—just [http://creativecommons.org/license/ select your license at our ‘Publish’ page]. <br /> <br /> One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.<br /> <br /> ====What things should I think about before I apply a Creative Commons license to my work?====<br /> <br /> We have set out some things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work [[Before Licensing|here]]<br /> <br /> ====Which Creative Commons license should I choose?====<br /> <br /> You should choose the license that meets your preferences. The license is a statement as to what others may do with your work, so you should select a license that matches what you are happy for others to do with your work. You can find [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here].<br /> <br /> You can find out information about how our licenses have been applied by other people to [http://creativecommons.org/text/ text], [http://creativecommons.org/audio/ audio], [http://creativecommons.org/image/ images], [http://creativecommons.org/video/ video] and [http://creativecommons.org/education/ educational works]. <br /> <br /> You can also participate in our [http://creativecommons.org/discuss email discussion lists] and/or review the discussion archives to see if our community is able to respond to your questions and concerns and/or has already addressed them.<br /> <br /> Finally, you can also consult with a lawyer to obtain advice on the best license for your needs. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Will_Creative_Commons_help_me_enforce_my_license?|this question and answer]].<br /> <br /> ====What if I change my mind?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need to sign something or register to obtain a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> No. Creative Commons licenses are designed to be applied to your work and to be binding upon people who use your work based on their notice of the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” (or “No Rights Reserved” in the case of the public domain dedication) button and the statement that the work is Creative Commons-licensed. <br /> <br /> We do not keep track of or a register of which creative works have been licensed under a Creative Commons license. We make the licenses, code and tools available for you to use or not as you wish.<br /> <br /> ====What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/metadata do?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).<br /> <br /> The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.<br /> <br /> The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law. <br /> <br /> The metadata describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through [http://creativecommons.org/find/ customized search engines].<br /> <br /> ====I am in a band; can I use Creative Commons licenses but still collect statutory royalties such as under statutory licenses for public performances?====<br /> <br /> Yes, so long as you choose a “NonCommercial” license option (ie. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) because under these licenses you reserve the right to collect royalties under statutory or compulsory licenses for commercial use of your work. Whether, as a practical matter, you can collect these royalties, depends on which country you are in (check out the answer to the next question).<br /> <br /> Under the Creative Commons licenses that permit other people to make commercial use of your work (ie. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives), the licensor waives the right to collect these royalties.<br /> <br /> ====I am a member of a collecting society, can I use Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> You need to check with your society. Currently, many of the collecting societies in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Taiwan and the Netherlands take an assignment of rights (or in France what is called a “mandate” of rights that nonetheless has the same effect practically as an assignment) from you in present and future works (so that they effectively become the owner of these rights) and manage them for you. So if you are already a member of a collecting society in one of these jurisdictions, you may not be entitled to license your work yourself under a Creative Commons license because the necessary rights are not held by you but by the collecting society. Please also read the FAQ on the website of the Creative Commons project team for your jurisdiction for more information about this issue in your jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons is reaching out to collecting societies in those jurisdictions where this problem arises to try to find a solution that enables creators to enjoy the benefits both systems offer. <br /> <br /> If you encounter difficulties with using Creative Commons licenses because of your membership in a collecting society in your jurisdiction that is not listed above, please let either your country’s Creative Commons [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project team] know or email info@creativecommons.org. Also, if you wish to discuss ways to try to deal with the situation in your country please contact your country’s Creative Commons [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project team]. <br /> <br /> If you are already a member of one of these collecting societies, feel free to encourage your collecting society to give you the option of Creative Commons licensing.<br /> <br /> ====Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work. <br /> <br /> Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.<br /> <br /> One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need to register my copyright?====<br /> <br /> In most jurisdictions, registration is not required. However, for creators in the United States registration can be obtained and is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page, which explains more about copyright registration.<br /> <br /> ====How do I register my copyright?====<br /> <br /> If you are based in the US, to find out more about how to register your copyright, check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page.<br /> <br /> ====Is applying a Creative Commons license to my work the same or an alternative to registering the copyright to my work?====<br /> <br /> No. Applying a Creative Commons license to your work does not give you the same, similar or alternate protection to registering your copyright. Creative Commons licenses apply in addition to and on top of an existing copyright. <br /> <br /> ====Do I need to register my copyright in order to use a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> No. Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are copyrighted. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, copyright protection is automatic for those works that satisfy the requirements of copyright law. Generally, copyright attaches to creative and expressive works once they are fixed in tangible form, ie. the minute you put pen to paper, brush to easel, hit the “save” button on your computer, the “send” button on your email or take a photo.<br /> <br /> For U.S. based creators, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page which explains more about copyright registration.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?====<br /> <br /> You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact. <br /> <br /> ====Do Creative Commons licenses affect fair use, fair dealing or other exceptions to copyright?====<br /> <br /> No. All jurisdictions allow some uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as quotation, current-affairs reporting, or parody, although these vary from country to country. These are not dependent on the license and so cannot be affected by it. To make this clear, all of our licenses include this or similar language: “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.” Thus, regardless of the jurisdiction a user is in, our licenses do not affect a user’s right to use or allow use of content under copyright exceptions.<br /> <br /> ====Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] or listed at the [http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative] should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with its Commons Deed and metadata if you wish to use these licenses and still take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable code and Creative Commons customized search engine technology. You can find more details [http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl here].<br /> <br /> ====Should I use Creative Commons licenses for software documentation?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely. Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.<br /> <br /> ====What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.<br /> <br /> ====Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in a court of law?====<br /> <br /> The Creative Commons Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be enforceable in court. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws and/or the circumstances within which our licenses are applied and Creative Commons-licensed content is used. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.<br /> <br /> ====Will Creative Commons help me enforce my license?====<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, Creative Commons is not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist you with enforcing the licenses. We cannot afford to provide any ancillary services particular to your situation and, in any case, our mission does not include providing such services. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help press that offers form documentation -- at no cost -- for you to use however you see fit. <br /> <br /> However, if you are based in the US, you may be able to find a suitably qualified volunteer lawyer in your area from [http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/help/volunteer%20lawyers.htm this site]. If you are based in Australia, the [http://www.artslaw.com.au/ Arts Law Centre of Australia] may be able to put you in touch with a volunteer lawyer.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms. <br /> <br /> You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Will_Creative_Commons_help_me_enforce_my_license?|this question and answer]].<br /> <br /> ====I don’t like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?====<br /> <br /> If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work.<br /> <br /> In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators “moral rights” which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to “derogatory treatment” of their work; “derogatory treatment” is typically defined as “distortion or mutilation” of the work or treatment, which is “prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.” All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered “derogatory.”<br /> <br /> ===Questions for people thinking about using a Creative Commons-licensed work===<br /> <br /> ====Will Creative Commons give me permission to use a work?====<br /> <br /> The permission isn’t ours to give. Creative Commons simply makes available licenses and tools to enable creators and licensors to license their works on more flexible terms. By applying a Creative Commons license to a work, the creator or licensor has decided to clearly signal to members of the public, such as you, that you may use the work without having to ask for permission—provided that you use it consistent with the license terms.<br /> <br /> ====Does Creative Commons determine what content is released under its licenses?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons, as an organization, does not control how the licenses are used and does not check or verify whether a Creative Commons license has been correctly applied to a particular work. Creative Commons does not endorse or certify any use of its licenses.<br /> <br /> Instead, Creative Commons provides the licenses as a tool that may be adopted (or not) by members of the creative community. Creative Commons does not determine whether the use of the licenses is appropriate for your situation or for a particular work.<br /> <br /> ====What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:<br /> <br /> <br/>Attribution=you must attribute the author and/or licensor in the manner they require.<br /> <br/>NonCommercial=you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.<br /> <br/>NoDerivatives=you may only make verbatim copies of the work, you may not adapt or change it.<br /> <br/>ShareAlike=you may only make derivative works if you license them under the same Creative Commons license terms.<br /> <br /> For an overview of our licenses and links to the Commons Deed and Legal Code, check out [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses this page]. For the key details of our Sampling Licenses check [http://creativecommons.org/about/sampling this page].<br /> <br /> ====So “NonCommercial” means that the work cannot be used commercially?====<br /> <br /> Not quite. The “NonCommercial” license option means that you do not receive the commercial rights via the Creative Commons license. You can always approach the licensor directly to see if they will separately license you the commercial rights.<br /> <br /> ====What does the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” button mean? What does a Creative Commons license do?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license is a signal to you that you can use the work without having to seek out the individual creator or licensor and ask for permission—provided you use the work in the manner permitted by the Creative Commons license. The Commons Deed sets out the key terms governing your use of the work.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if I want to make a different use of the work?====<br /> <br /> If you want to use a Creative Commons-licensed work in a manner that is not permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you need to contact the creator and/or licensor and ask for their permission. If you use a Creative-Commons licensed work contrary to the terms of the Creative Commons license, your right to use the work terminates and you could be sued for infringement of copyright.<br /> <br /> ====So I don’t have to pay to use Creative Commons-licensed works if I comply with the license terms?====<br /> <br /> As a general rule yes—Creative Commons licenses are made available under royalty-free licenses. In the case of Creative Commons-licensed works that are licensed for NonCommercial use only, the creator or licensor reserves the right to collect statutory royalties or royalties under compulsory licenses for commercial uses such as those collected for public performances; so, you may still have to pay a collecting society for such uses of Creative Commons licensed works. However, these are indirect payments, not payments to the licensor.<br /> <br /> ====How do I use a Creative Commons-licensed work?====<br /> <br /> If you come across a work that says it is made available under a Creative Commons license, you are authorized by the licensor to use it consistent with those license terms. You should satisfy yourself that the scope of the license covers your intended uses. Since there are a number of versions of the Creative Commons licenses, you should read the particular license carefully to ensure that the license meets your needs. All Creative Commons licenses require that you attribute the author, licensor and/or any other parties specified by the author/licensor. To correctly use a Creative Commons licensed work, you must provide proper attribution. This is explained in [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work?|the answer below]].<br /> <br /> To get an understanding of the key terms of the license, check out the Commons Deed for the license and/or review [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses this page], which has links to the Commons Deed and basic explanations of all of our licenses.<br /> <br /> ====Does using a Creative Commons-licensed work give me all the rights I need?====<br /> <br /> You should be aware that all of the licenses contain a disclaimer of warranties, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the licensor has all the necessary rights to permit reuse of the licensed work. The disclaimer means that the licensor is not guaranteeing anything about the work, including that she owns the copyright to it, or that she has cleared any uses of third-party content that her work may be based on or incorporate. <br /> <br /> This is typical of so-called “open source” licenses, where works are made widely and freely available for reuse at no charge. The original version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses contained a warranty, but we ultimately concluded that, as with “open source” licenses, warranties and indemnities are best determined separately by private bargain, so that each licensor and licensee can determine the appropriate allocation of risk and reward for their unique situation. One option thus would be to use private contract to obtain a warranty and indemnification from the licensor, although it is likely that the licensor would charge for this benefit. <br /> <br /> As a result of the warranty disclaimer, before using a Creative Commons licensed work, you should satisfy yourself that the person has all the necessary rights to make the work available under a Creative Commons license. You should know that if you are wrong, you could be liable for copyright infringement based on your use of the work.<br /> <br /> You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license.<br /> <br /> The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice. <br /> <br /> ====How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?====<br /> <br /> If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses (Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommerical, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (this is the same as the Music Sharing license)) or under our Developing Nations license, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor. <br /> <br /> You also need to provide the Uniform Resource Locator for the Creative Commons license that applies to the work, together with each copy of the work that you make available.<br /> <br /> If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses or under the Developing Nations license, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”<br /> <br /> If you are sampling a work licensed under one of our Sampling licenses you should credit derivative works you create using those samples by saying something along the lines of: “Remix of the [original work] by [author]” or “Inclusion of a portion of the [original work] by [author] in collage.”<br /> <br /> ====What is a derivative work?====<br /> <br /> A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy. What this means exactly and comprehensively is the subject of many law journal articles and much debate and pontification. In general, a translation from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works. Under Creative Commons’ core licenses, synching music in timed-relation with a moving image is considered to be a derivative work.<br /> <br /> It's important to note, however, that the Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or media, even in the NoDerivatives licenses. This means that, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, for example, you can copy the work from a digital file to a print file consistent with the terms of that license.<br /> <br /> ====If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work with other works, do I have to Creative Commons license everything else as well?====<br /> <br /> With the exception of those of our licenses that contain the ShareAlike element, the Creative Commons licenses do not require everything else to be Creative Commons licensed as well. We specifically designed the Creative Commons licenses so that they would not turn all other works they were combined with into being Creative Commons-licensed. If you combine any work with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is licensed with a ShareAlike license provision, then, because of the way that the ShareAlike license element operates, the resultant work will need to be licensed under the same license as the original work.<br /> <br /> If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a “collective work” (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection.<br /> <br /> ====Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?====<br /> <br /> Generally yes; you can combine one Creative Commons licensed work with another Creative Commons licensed work or with another work. <br /> <br /> The one big caveat is for Creative Commons licenses that contain the ShareAlike license element (ie. Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). These licenses require derivative works (ie. the result of two combined works) to be licensed under the same license elements. So, you cannot, for example, combine an Attribution-ShareAlike license with an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. If you are combining a work licensed under a ShareAlike license condition, you need to make sure that you are happy and able to license the resulting work under the same license conditions as the original work.<br /> <br /> ====I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?====<br /> <br /> The chart below should give you some assistance in figuring out which Creative Commons license you can use to relicense a work. Some of our licenses just do not, as practical matter, work together. <br /> <br /> The chart below shows blackened cells to indicate licenses that can be used without complication to relicense work licensed under license noted at beginning of each row. To see what license a work that incorporates works under multiple licenses can use, see which columns are filled in for all relevant rows. Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NonCommercial license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NonCommercial license or or one of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs and NonCommercial-SamplingPlus.<br /> <br /> <TABLE WIDTH=594 BORDER=1 BORDERCOLOR="#c0c0c0" CELLPADDING=1 CELLSPACING=3><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western"><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-nd</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-sa</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nd</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-sa</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>nc-sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>publicdomain</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling+</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-nd</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-sa</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nd</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-sa</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>nc-sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>publicdomain</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> </TABLE><br /> <br /> <br /> The above chart only displays which licenses are, as a practical matter, incompatible. It is not a substitute for obtaining your own legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or represented as legal advice. As explained above, Creative Commons is not able to provide you with legal advice. You need to independently assess which Creative Commons license is suitable for your requirements and your obligations to upstream licensors.<br /> <br /> ===Technical Questions=== <br /> <br /> ====I want to give users of my site the option to choose Creative Commons licensing; how do I do that?====<br /> <br /> You can directly integrate the Creative Commons license selection engine into your site. This can be useful if you have an application or website that allows people to contribute content and you want to give them the option to apply Creative Commons licenses to their works. Here is a [http://creativecommons.org/technology/web-integration step-by-step guide] on how to integrate our license selection engine with a website. We also have a [http://api.creativecommons.org web services API] for integration with any application.<br /> <br /> ====Why did Creative Commons choose to use the RDF format for its metadata?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons looked for the best way to express the intent behind the licenses in machine-readable form. We feel that our system provides the best of all possible worlds: RDF, XML, and even plain text-based tools can easily process our metadata files because we provide them with a structured format. But just as XML tools make it easier to process the information than text-based ones, RDF ones make it even easier -- so we encourage all of our developers to use RDF tools where possible. We're also working with the community to provide CC sample code, in many different languages, that shows how easy it is to take advantage of the RDF information. We're also open to providing converters from RDF to other formats. If you have such a tool or would like one, please send information about it to our metadata list.<br /> <br /> ====How can I use Creative Commons metadata in my program?====<br /> <br /> You can use it in a variety of ways. A painting, writing, or drawing program could let its users know about their rights granted by the licensor of the file. File sharing software could highlight files with Creative Commons licenses and encourage users to download them. In fact, we see peer-to-peer file sharing software as an excellent distribution mechanism for Creative Commons works, especially large music, picture, and movie files that the authors might not have the bandwidth or tools necessary to distribute themselves. Search systems could allow users the choice of only searching for files with licenses that permit certain uses (such as searching for pictures of cats that you can include in your non-commercial collage). There are many ways to take advantage of this information and we hope the developer community will surprise us by coming up with others!<br /> <br /> ====I'd prefer to use a PNG image instead of a GIF image or vice versa. What should I do?====<br /> <br /> We provide license buttons in both formats. Change, e.g., [http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gif somerights20.gif] to [http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png somerights20.png] or vice versa.<br /> <br /> ===Questions about using Creative Commons’ logo===<br /> <br /> ====Where can I get a high resolution version of the Creative Commons logos?====<br /> <br /> You can get high resolution versions of the Creative Commons logos and license buttons [http://creativecommons.org/presskit/ here]. Creative Commons only authorizes the use of our logos, name and license buttons in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies].<br /> <br /> ====I want to print out some t-shirts & stickers with Creative Commons logos; how do I go about doing this?====<br /> <br /> We’re glad you are excited about Creative Commons and want to spread the message. We only authorize use of our logo, name and license buttons in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies], ie. to linkback to the Creative Commons website, a Creative Commons license and/or otherwise describe a Creative Commons license that applies to a work.<br /> <br /> You can support Creative Commons and purchase t-shirts and stickers via our [http://creativecommons.org/support/store]. In addition, movies about Creative Commons are available for download [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/ here].<br /> <br /> ====I want to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into my site or work, can I?====<br /> <br /> You are welcome to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into your site or work if you do so in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies page]. Basically, we only authorize use of the Creative Commons corporate logo (that is the name Creative Commons and the “CC” in a circle) to link back to our website; and our “Some Rights Reserved” and “No Rights Reserved” buttons as well as our license element buttons (ie. the Attribution license button, the NonCommercial license button etc.) to be used to link back to our respective licenses.<br /> <br /> ====Can I change the Creative Commons logos so that they look better on my site or with my work?====<br /> <br /> Please don’t change our logo so that it works better with the look of your site or work. Our “Some Rights Reserved” and “No Rights Reserved” buttons need to be used consistently because they are our trademark and a core part of our licensing system. You can also use the license elements buttons that are in black and white to signal that your work or site is licensed under the relevant Creative Commons license; this is also explained at our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies page].<br /> <br /> ===About Creative Commons===<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons against copyright?====<br /> <br /> Not at all. Our licenses help you retain your copyright and manage your copyright in a more flexible, open way. In fact, our licenses rely upon copyright for their enforcement. The justification for intellectual property protection (under U.S. law, at least) is the "promot[ion of] the progress of science and the useful arts." We want to promote science and the useful arts, too, and believe that helping creators or licensors fine-tune the exercise of their rights to suit their preferences helps do just that.<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely not. We believe in the Net, not an information bank controlled by a single organization. We are building tools so that the semantic web can identify and sort licensed works in a distributed, decentralized manner. We are not in the business of collecting content, or building databases of content.<br /> <br /> Now, to give you an idea of the sorts of uses that can be made of our licenses and metadata, we've provided some examples on our site for [http://creativecommons.org/text/ text], [http://creativecommons.org/audio/ audio], [http://creativecommons.org/image/ images], [http://creativecommons.org/video/ video] and [http://creativecommons.org/education/ educational works]. It's by no means a comprehensive catalog of everything being done with Creative Commons licenses today, nor is it the beginnings of a database. They are simply illustrations of some works, in a variety of media, that have been Creative Commons licensed so far.<br /> <br /> ====Will works that use Creative Commons licenses be in the "public domain"?====<br /> <br /> No, because the licensor does not give up all rights to his or her work. The Creative Commons licenses are only copyright licenses that enable you to control how other people use your work. <br /> <br /> If you want to put your work in the public domain -- the realm of creative material unfettered by copyright law – you can use our [http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain Public Domain Dedication]. By dedicating your work to the public domain, you are effectively relinquishing all copyright interests you may otherwise have in the work. However, this waiver may not be valid outside of the US.<br /> <br /> ====What is Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Structurally, Creative Commons is a Massachusetts, US, US charitable corporation . Also working to promote the idea of Creative Commons are volunteer project leads in each of the jurisdictions to which Creative Commons licenses have been ported. Creative Commons International and the volunteer [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project leads] are independent and separate entities although both work in collaboration to promote the adoption of Creative Commons licenses and tools. <br /> <br /> The idea underlying Creative Commons is that some people may not want to exercise all of the intellectual property rights the law affords them. We believe there is an unmet demand for an easy yet reliable way to tell the world “Some rights reserved” or even “No rights reserved.” Many people have long since concluded that all-out copyright doesn't help them gain the exposure and widespread distribution they want. Many entrepreneurs and artists have come to prefer relying on innovative business models rather than full-fledged copyright to secure a return on their creative investment. Still others get fulfillment from contributing to and participating in an intellectual commons. For whatever reasons, it is clear that many citizens of the Internet want to share their work -- and the power to reuse, modify, and distribute their work -- with others on generous terms. Creative Commons intends to help people express this preference for sharing by offering the world a set of licenses on our Website, at no charge.<br /> <br /> ====Who started Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Cyberlaw and intellectual property experts James Boyle, Michael Carroll, and Lawrence Lessig, MIT computer science professor Hal Abelson, lawyer-turned-documentary filmmaker-turned-cyberlaw expert Eric Saltzman, and public domain Web publisher Eric Eldred founded Creative Commons in 2001. Fellows and students at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School helped get the project off the ground and, for the first couple of years of its existence, Creative Commons was housed at and received generous support from Stanford Law School and the Center for Internet & Society. <br /> <br /> ====What problem does Creative Commons intend to solve?====<br /> <br /> With the advent of the digital revolution and the Internet, it is suddenly possible to distribute works in a variety of formats of a high, often professional quality; to work collaboratively across contexts; and to create new, derivative or collective works—on a global level, in a decentralised manner, and at comparatively low cost. <br /> <br /> This presents an opportunity for an enormous and unprecedented stimulation of creativity and production of knowledge. As more and more people are interconnected and communicating, it becomes easier to obtain exactly the content one needs or want and to complete tasks and solve problems by the cooperation this interconnection enables. The convergence of technologies and media also create multiple new possibilities for creating derivatives of existing works -- for example, remixes and mashups. <br /> <br /> Another notable aspect is that globalization is not only happening on the corporate level, its effects can also be observed in the areas of science and education and in other sectors of society where new models of fruitful cooperation have appeared. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia and the free and open source software community are examples of these sociological and economic phenomena. The activities of many contributors to projects in these areas are not motivated by the desire to gain (immediate) financial benefit but by the desire to learn, to get recognition, and also to help others. <br /> <br /> The downside of these exciting new developments and possibilities is that the new technologies can also be used to violate the rights of copyright owners as they are currently defined. In turn, major right holders have reacted to this by a fourfold strategy: (a) by trying to prevent the deployment of technologies that can be put to infringing uses; (b) by developing tools that enable them to manage their rights with an amount of precision hitherto unknown and unthinkable: digital rights management and technological protection measures against unauthorised copying; (c) by successfully lobbying for support of these technological measures through legal restrictions; and, (d) by starting huge publicity campaigns designed to teach young people that they must keep their hands off copyrighted material - or else. <br /> <br /> These responses are understandable, if regrettable. Our concern is that their combined effect will be to stifle the opportunities for digital technologies to be used widely to encourage creativity and for the problem-solving and collaboration discussed above. If creators and licensors have to negotiate not only complicated legal rules, but also burdensome technical barriers, many will either ignore the rules or not create.<br /> <br /> Our alternative is to provide creators and licensors with a simple way to say what freedoms they want their creative work to carry. This in turn makes it easy to share, or build upon creative work. It makes it possible for creators and licensors to reserve some rights while releasing others. This, at its core, is our mission. Copyright gives authors certain rights. We want to make it simpler for authors to exercise those rights in ways others can understand. <br /> <br /> ====Does it cost me anything to use the Creative Commons licenses & tools?====<br /> <br /> Nope. They're free.<br /> <br /> ====Who funds Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons was founded with a generous donation from the Center for the Public Domain and receives ongoing support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network. We continue to seek donations from other sources, including foundations, individuals, and government grants. If you would like to support Creative Commons, feel free to do so at our [http://creativecommons.org/support/ support page].<br /> <br /> ====Whom does Creative Commons serve or represent?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons serves creators and users of creative works and the public interest that benefits from greater collaboration using creative materials. We help people who want to license their work on generous terms, people who want to make creative uses of those works, and people who benefit from this symbiosis. We hope that teachers, scholars, scientists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, musicians, graphic designers, Web hobbyists -- as well as listeners, readers, and viewers -- gain from the use of our tools.<br /> <br /> ====Where is Creative Commons based?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation that draws on the work of geographically distributed staff and volunteers. Our main offices are in San Francisco, US and London, United Kingdom.<br /> <br /> ====Does Creative Commons host or own any content?====<br /> <br /> Our primary mission is to help you license your work, offer you tools to more easily publish your works, and point to examples of CC-licensed content from our featured works. We also offer ways for users to find licensed works and easily understand their license terms. <br /> <br /> We do, however, also host content on its [http://ccmixter.org ccMixter site].<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons involved in digital rights management (DRM)?====<br /> <br /> No. We are in the business of digital rights expression, not management. Our tools make it easy to say what rights an author is reserving. But we do not provide tools for enforcing the rights the author reserves. Digital rights management (or “DRM”) does. In addition to digitally expressing rights, a DRM system provides technology for enforcing those rights. <br /> <br /> Why don’t we use technology to enforce rights? There are too many reasons to describe here. Perhaps the most familiar is the fact that technology cannot protect freedoms such as “fair use.” Put differently, “fair use” can’t be coded. But more importantly, we believe, technological enforcement burdens unplanned creative reuse of creative work. We want to encourage such use. And we, along with many others, are concerned that the ecology for creativity will be stifled by the pervasive use of technology to “manage” rights. <br /> <br /> Copyrights should be respected, no doubt. But we prefer they be respected the old fashioned way — by people acting to respect the freedoms, and limits, chosen by the author and enforced by the law.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?====<br /> <br /> If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from "distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."<br /> <br /> ====I love what Creative Commons does. How can I help?====<br /> <br /> We would be very grateful for your help. You are welcome to support Creative Commons Corporation by [http://creativecommons.org/support/ making a donation at our Support page]. In exchange for your donation, you'll receive a variety of items, depending on level. Donations and shipping addresses are handled by Paypal.<br /> <br /> You can also give us feedback directly at info@creativecommons.org. Alternately, you can participate in our [http://creativecommons.org/discuss email discussion lists].<br /> <br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5332 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:28:42Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 3.0 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Released February 2007 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249.<br /> Article explaining the changes http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5331 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:28:29Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 3.0 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Released February 2007 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249<br /> Article explaining the changes http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5330 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:28:15Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 1.0 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Launched February 2007 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249<br /> Article explaining the changes http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5329 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:27:59Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 2.5 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16.<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Launched February 2007 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249<br /> Article explaining the changes http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5328 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:27:13Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 3.0 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16.<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447<br /> <br /> and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Launched February 2007 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249<br /> Article explaining the changes http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5327 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:26:53Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 2.5 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16.<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447<br /> <br /> and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Launched February 2007 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249]<br /> Article explaining the changes [[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3]]<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5326 License Versions 2007-02-23T21:26:16Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 3.0 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16.<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at:<br /> <br /> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447<br /> <br /> and<br /> <br /> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> Launched February 2007 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249]<br /> Article explaining the changes [[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3]]<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5325 Version 3 2007-02-23T21:14:17Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.<br /> <br /> ==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==<br /> <br /> A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations similarly committed to promoting a freer culture, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).<br /> <br /> Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review: Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). As Lessig explained:<br /> <br /> "Even if all the creative work you want to remix is licensed under a copyleft license, because those licenses are different licenses, you can’t take creative work from one, and remix it in another. Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only. And the same is true of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that governs Opsound content, as well as much of the creativity within Flickr. All of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age — interoperability."<br /> <br /> This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and CC BY-SA (''See'' Evan Prodromou, Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works, May 3, 2005 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html]). <br /> <br /> Simply put, the problem is that any license with a "ShareAlike" or similar copyleft provision requires that any derivatives be licensed under exactly the same license (or family of licenses) as the original. This means that an article about Rio de Janeiro on Wikipedia [http://wikipedia.org/] (which is currently licensed under the FDL) cannot be mixed with an article about Rio on Wikitravel [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page] (which is currently licensed under the CC BY-SA 1.0). Even if a project were dual licensed, none of the derivatives of the project could be returned back to the dual-licensed project (because they must be licensed under one ''or'' the other license), thus causing "project bleed." The result of the ShareAlike or "copyleft" license terms is seemingly antithetical to the very purpose of the licenses that contain them. Content, rather than being "free" to remix, is instead locked within particular licensing systems.<br /> <br /> Consequently, CC has been working to ensure that, to again quote Lessig:<br /> <br /> "[C]reative work[s] will more easily be able to move from one license to another, as creativity is remixed. And this ability for creative work to move to compatible free licenses will provide a market signal about which licenses are deemed more stable, or reliable, by the free licensing community. Free culture will no longer be ghettoized within a particular free license. It will instead be able to move among all relevantly compatible licenses. And the world of “autistic freedom” that governs much of the free software world will be avoided in the free culture world."<br /> <br /> There are several obvious candidates for compatibility with the CC BY-SA. The Free Art License [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/] and the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons' initial work has focused on achieving compatibility with the FDL. As part of this work, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because CC licensors could not be guaranteed the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.<br /> <br /> Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the FDL, Creative Commons is still hopeful of being able to announce licenses that effect the same freedoms as the CC BY-SA to be compatible with the CC BY-SA at some date in the future. To allow the compatibility negotiations to occur separate and apart from the timing of the license versioning process, we have included a structure for certifying licenses as compatible with CC BY-SA as part of Version 3.0 (''See'' Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]).<br /> <br /> ==Summary of Links==<br /> <br /> The following list provides the CC blog posts that relate to Version 3.0:<br /> <br /> * Getting to Version 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908]<br /> * Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017] <br /> * Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120]<br /> * Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5324 Version 3 2007-02-23T21:12:07Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Summary of Links */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.<br /> <br /> ==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==<br /> <br /> A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations similarly committed to promoting a freer culture, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).<br /> <br /> Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review" Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). As Lessig explained:<br /> <br /> "Even if all the creative work you want to remix is licensed under a copyleft license, because those licenses are different licenses, you can’t take creative work from one, and remix it in another. Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only. And the same is true of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that governs Opsound content, as well as much of the creativity within Flickr. All of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age — interoperability."<br /> <br /> This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and CC BY-SA (''See'' Evan Prodromou, Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works, May 3, 2005 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html]). <br /> <br /> Simply put, the problem is that any license with a "ShareAlike" or similar copyleft provision requires that any derivatives be licensed under exactly the same license (or family of licenses) as the original. This means that an article about Rio de Janeiro on Wikipedia [http://wikipedia.org/] (which is currently licensed under the FDL) cannot be mixed with an article about Rio on Wikitravel [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page] (which is currently licensed under the CC BY-SA 1.0). Even if a project were dual licensed, none of the derivatives of the project could be returned back to the dual-licensed project (because they must be licensed under one ''or'' the other license, thus causing "project bleed." The result of these license terms is seemingly antithetical to the intention of the very purpose of the licenses that contain them. Content, rather than being "free" to remix, is instead locked within particular licensing systems.<br /> <br /> Consequently, CC has been working to enable that, to again quote Lessig:<br /> <br /> "[C]reative work[s] will more easily be able to move from one license to another, as creativity is remixed. And this ability for creative work to move to compatible free licenses will provide a market signal about which licenses are deemed more stable, or reliable, by the free licensing community. Free culture will no longer be ghettoized within a particular free license. It will instead be able to move among all relevantly compatible licenses. And the world of “autistic freedom” that governs much of the free software world will be avoided in the free culture world."<br /> <br /> There are several candidates for compatibility with the CC BY-SA. The Free Art License [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/] and the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons' initial work has focused on enabling compatibility with the FDL. As part of this work, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because it was not possible to guarantee CC licensors the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.<br /> <br /> Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the FDL, Creative Commons is still hopeful of being able to announce licenses that effect the same freedoms as the CC BY-SA to be compatible with the CC BY-SA at some date in the future. To allow the compatibility negotiations to occur separate and apart from the timing of the license versioning process, we have included a structure for certifying licenses as compatible with CC BY-SA as part of Version 3.0 (''See'' Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]).<br /> <br /> ==Summary of Links==<br /> <br /> The following list provides the CC blog posts that relate to Version 3.0:<br /> <br /> * Getting to Version 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908]<br /> * Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017] <br /> * Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120]<br /> * Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5323 Version 3 2007-02-23T21:09:28Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Summary of Links */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.<br /> <br /> ==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==<br /> <br /> A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations similarly committed to promoting a freer culture, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).<br /> <br /> Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review" Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). As Lessig explained:<br /> <br /> "Even if all the creative work you want to remix is licensed under a copyleft license, because those licenses are different licenses, you can’t take creative work from one, and remix it in another. Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only. And the same is true of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that governs Opsound content, as well as much of the creativity within Flickr. All of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age — interoperability."<br /> <br /> This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and CC BY-SA (''See'' Evan Prodromou, Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works, May 3, 2005 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html]). <br /> <br /> Simply put, the problem is that any license with a "ShareAlike" or similar copyleft provision requires that any derivatives be licensed under exactly the same license (or family of licenses) as the original. This means that an article about Rio de Janeiro on Wikipedia [http://wikipedia.org/] (which is currently licensed under the FDL) cannot be mixed with an article about Rio on Wikitravel [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page] (which is currently licensed under the CC BY-SA 1.0). Even if a project were dual licensed, none of the derivatives of the project could be returned back to the dual-licensed project (because they must be licensed under one ''or'' the other license, thus causing "project bleed." The result of these license terms is seemingly antithetical to the intention of the very purpose of the licenses that contain them. Content, rather than being "free" to remix, is instead locked within particular licensing systems.<br /> <br /> Consequently, CC has been working to enable that, to again quote Lessig:<br /> <br /> "[C]reative work[s] will more easily be able to move from one license to another, as creativity is remixed. And this ability for creative work to move to compatible free licenses will provide a market signal about which licenses are deemed more stable, or reliable, by the free licensing community. Free culture will no longer be ghettoized within a particular free license. It will instead be able to move among all relevantly compatible licenses. And the world of “autistic freedom” that governs much of the free software world will be avoided in the free culture world."<br /> <br /> There are several candidates for compatibility with the CC BY-SA. The Free Art License [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/] and the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons' initial work has focused on enabling compatibility with the FDL. As part of this work, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because it was not possible to guarantee CC licensors the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.<br /> <br /> Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the FDL, Creative Commons is still hopeful of being able to announce licenses that effect the same freedoms as the CC BY-SA to be compatible with the CC BY-SA at some date in the future. To allow the compatibility negotiations to occur separate and apart from the timing of the license versioning process, we have included a structure for certifying licenses as compatible with CC BY-SA as part of Version 3.0 (''See'' Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]).<br /> <br /> ==Summary of Links==<br /> <br /> The following list provides the CC blog post that relate to Version 3.0:<br /> <br /> * Getting to Version 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908]<br /> * Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017] <br /> * Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120]<br /> * Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5322 Version 3 2007-02-23T21:08:53Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Summary of Links */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.<br /> <br /> ==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==<br /> <br /> A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations similarly committed to promoting a freer culture, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).<br /> <br /> Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review" Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). As Lessig explained:<br /> <br /> "Even if all the creative work you want to remix is licensed under a copyleft license, because those licenses are different licenses, you can’t take creative work from one, and remix it in another. Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only. And the same is true of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that governs Opsound content, as well as much of the creativity within Flickr. All of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age — interoperability."<br /> <br /> This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and CC BY-SA (''See'' Evan Prodromou, Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works, May 3, 2005 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html]). <br /> <br /> Simply put, the problem is that any license with a "ShareAlike" or similar copyleft provision requires that any derivatives be licensed under exactly the same license (or family of licenses) as the original. This means that an article about Rio de Janeiro on Wikipedia [http://wikipedia.org/] (which is currently licensed under the FDL) cannot be mixed with an article about Rio on Wikitravel [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page] (which is currently licensed under the CC BY-SA 1.0). Even if a project were dual licensed, none of the derivatives of the project could be returned back to the dual-licensed project (because they must be licensed under one ''or'' the other license, thus causing "project bleed." The result of these license terms is seemingly antithetical to the intention of the very purpose of the licenses that contain them. Content, rather than being "free" to remix, is instead locked within particular licensing systems.<br /> <br /> Consequently, CC has been working to enable that, to again quote Lessig:<br /> <br /> "[C]reative work[s] will more easily be able to move from one license to another, as creativity is remixed. And this ability for creative work to move to compatible free licenses will provide a market signal about which licenses are deemed more stable, or reliable, by the free licensing community. Free culture will no longer be ghettoized within a particular free license. It will instead be able to move among all relevantly compatible licenses. And the world of “autistic freedom” that governs much of the free software world will be avoided in the free culture world."<br /> <br /> There are several candidates for compatibility with the CC BY-SA. The Free Art License [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/] and the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons' initial work has focused on enabling compatibility with the FDL. As part of this work, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because it was not possible to guarantee CC licensors the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.<br /> <br /> Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the FDL, Creative Commons is still hopeful of being able to announce licenses that effect the same freedoms as the CC BY-SA to be compatible with the CC BY-SA at some date in the future. To allow the compatibility negotiations to occur separate and apart from the timing of the license versioning process, we have included a structure for certifying licenses as compatible with CC BY-SA as part of Version 3.0 (''See'' Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]).<br /> <br /> ==Summary of Links==<br /> <br /> The following list provides the CC blog post that relate to Version 3.0:<br /> <br /> Getting to Version 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908]<br /> Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017] <br /> Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120]<br /> Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5321 Version 3 2007-02-23T21:07:17Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.<br /> <br /> ==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==<br /> <br /> A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations similarly committed to promoting a freer culture, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).<br /> <br /> Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review" Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). As Lessig explained:<br /> <br /> "Even if all the creative work you want to remix is licensed under a copyleft license, because those licenses are different licenses, you can’t take creative work from one, and remix it in another. Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only. And the same is true of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that governs Opsound content, as well as much of the creativity within Flickr. All of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age — interoperability."<br /> <br /> This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and CC BY-SA (''See'' Evan Prodromou, Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works, May 3, 2005 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html]). <br /> <br /> Simply put, the problem is that any license with a "ShareAlike" or similar copyleft provision requires that any derivatives be licensed under exactly the same license (or family of licenses) as the original. This means that an article about Rio de Janeiro on Wikipedia [http://wikipedia.org/] (which is currently licensed under the FDL) cannot be mixed with an article about Rio on Wikitravel [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page] (which is currently licensed under the CC BY-SA 1.0). Even if a project were dual licensed, none of the derivatives of the project could be returned back to the dual-licensed project (because they must be licensed under one ''or'' the other license, thus causing "project bleed." The result of these license terms is seemingly antithetical to the intention of the very purpose of the licenses that contain them. Content, rather than being "free" to remix, is instead locked within particular licensing systems.<br /> <br /> Consequently, CC has been working to enable that, to again quote Lessig:<br /> <br /> "[C]reative work[s] will more easily be able to move from one license to another, as creativity is remixed. And this ability for creative work to move to compatible free licenses will provide a market signal about which licenses are deemed more stable, or reliable, by the free licensing community. Free culture will no longer be ghettoized within a particular free license. It will instead be able to move among all relevantly compatible licenses. And the world of “autistic freedom” that governs much of the free software world will be avoided in the free culture world."<br /> <br /> There are several candidates for compatibility with the CC BY-SA. The Free Art License [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/] and the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons' initial work has focused on enabling compatibility with the FDL. As part of this work, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because it was not possible to guarantee CC licensors the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.<br /> <br /> Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the FDL, Creative Commons is still hopeful of being able to announce licenses that effect the same freedoms as the CC BY-SA to be compatible with the CC BY-SA at some date in the future. To allow the compatibility negotiations to occur separate and apart from the timing of the license versioning process, we have included a structure for certifying licenses as compatible with CC BY-SA as part of Version 3.0 (''See'' Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]).<br /> <br /> ==Summary of Links==<br /> <br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908">Getting to Version 3.0</a><a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017"><br /> Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched</a> <br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120">Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts</a><br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234">Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too</a></div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5320 Version 3 2007-02-23T19:05:29Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* International Harmonization — Collecting Societies */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.<br /> <br /> ==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==<br /> <br /> A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses will now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).<br /> <br /> Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review" Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). <br /> <br /> One obvious candidate for compatibility with the CC BY-SA license is the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL). As part of its work to enable license interoperability, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because it was not possible to guarantee CC licensors the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5319 Version 3 2007-02-23T18:47:41Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* ''Debian'' */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ]. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].) <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> ===''MIT''===<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> ==Further Internationalization==<br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> ===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> ===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5318 Version 3 2007-02-23T18:34:50Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Debian */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> ===''Debian''=== <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license but was then also made available on iTunes. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content. Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage. <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> MIT<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> Further Internationalization <br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project, which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page, it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization – Moral Rights<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold. Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity. Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the ratioanel that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization — Collecting Societies<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law. Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5317 Version 3 2007-02-23T18:34:26Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Background to Version 3.0 */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.<br /> <br /> =Debian= <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license but was then also made available on iTunes. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content. Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage. <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> MIT<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> Further Internationalization <br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project, which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page, it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization – Moral Rights<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold. Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity. Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the ratioanel that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization — Collecting Societies<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law. Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5316 Version 3 2007-02-23T17:31:49Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* ''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons'' */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons<br /> <br /> =Debian= <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license but was then also made available on iTunes. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content. Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage. <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> MIT<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> Further Internationalization <br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project, which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page, it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization – Moral Rights<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold. Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity. Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the ratioanel that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization — Collecting Societies<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law. Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5315 Version 3 2007-02-23T17:31:07Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* ''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons'' */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> ===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, visit: [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons<br /> <br /> =Debian= <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license but was then also made available on iTunes. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content. Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage. <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> MIT<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> Further Internationalization <br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project, which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page, it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization – Moral Rights<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold. Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity. Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the ratioanel that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization — Collecting Societies<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law. Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5314 Version 3 2007-02-23T17:30:49Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> = Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =<br /> <br /> =''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''=<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, visit: [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons <br /> <br /> =Debian= <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license but was then also made available on iTunes. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content. Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage. <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> MIT<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> Further Internationalization <br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project, which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page, it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization – Moral Rights<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold. Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity. Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the ratioanel that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization — Collecting Societies<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law. Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Version_3&diff=5313 Version 3 2007-02-23T17:29:58Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> === Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation ===<br /> <br /> =''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''=<br /> <br /> Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, visit: [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the people to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions). <br /> <br /> A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used are always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.<br /> <br /> We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.<br /> <br /> ==Background to Version 3.0==<br /> <br /> The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons <br /> <br /> =Debian= <br /> <br /> As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.<br /> <br /> One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.<br /> <br /> From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:<br /> <br /> “Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')<br /> <br /> Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'') <br /> <br /> It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor. <br /> <br /> But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed to clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures. <br /> <br /> The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.<br /> <br /> In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM. <br /> <br /> An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license but was then also made available on iTunes. <br /> <br /> To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.<br /> <br /> The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.<br /> <br /> CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal. <br /> <br /> The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.<br /> <br /> However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content. Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage. <br /> <br /> Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.<br /> <br /> Certainly, Debian voted earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG. <br /> <br /> MIT<br /> <br /> With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.<br /> <br /> MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. <br /> <br /> Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given it’s illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.<br /> <br /> Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.<br /> <br /> This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses <br /> <br /> Further Internationalization <br /> <br /> When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project, which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world. <br /> <br /> Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 30 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. <br /> <br /> While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.<br /> <br /> The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC worldwide page, it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based? <br /> <br /> The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law. <br /> <br /> The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of <br /> Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.<br /> <br /> To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 30-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization – Moral Rights<br /> <br /> The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.<br /> <br /> Moral rights, to described them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold. Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection. <br /> <br /> While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity. Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.<br /> <br /> However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.<br /> <br /> But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.<br /> <br /> To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right. <br /> <br /> The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.<br /> <br /> For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the ratioanel that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.<br /> <br /> Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.<br /> <br /> As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.<br /> <br /> In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.<br /> <br /> International Harmonization — Collecting Societies<br /> <br /> Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law. Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees. <br /> <br /> CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.<br /> <br /> In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.<br /> <br /> Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.<br /> <br /> However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society. <br /> <br /> Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.<br /> <br /> In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.<br /> <br /> The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only. <br /> <br /> For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5307 License Versions 2007-02-21T18:11:00Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 2.5 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16.<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at:<br /> <br /> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447<br /> <br /> and<br /> <br /> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> In development. See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html for current drafts and explanation.<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=License_Versions&diff=5306 License Versions 2007-02-21T18:10:01Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* 2.5 */</p> <hr /> <div>The main CC licenses have been released in three versions: 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5. References to changes associated with each version will follow.<br /> <br /> ==1.0==<br /> <br /> Initial version, released 2002-12-16.<br /> <br /> ==2.0==<br /> <br /> Released 2004-05-25. Changes explained at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216<br /> <br /> ==2.5==<br /> <br /> Released 2005-06. Changes described at <br /> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447<br /> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457<br /> <br /> ==3.0==<br /> <br /> In development. See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html for current drafts and explanation.<br /> <br /> {{stub}}<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&diff=5293 Frequently Asked Questions 2007-02-19T22:39:08Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work? */</p> <hr /> <div>Please note that Creative Commons does not provide legal advice, so while this FAQ is designed to be helpful in raising awareness about the use of our licenses, it is by nature not a complete discussion nor a substitute for legal advice. It may not cover important issues that affect you and, depending on your situation, you may wish to consult with a lawyer.<br /> <br /> ===Questions for people thinking about applying a Creative Commons license to their work===<br /> <br /> ====How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work?====<br /> <br /> For online works, you apply a Creative Commons license to a work by [http://creativecommons.org/license/ selecting the license that suits your preferences]. Once you have selected your license, and if you are applying it to an online work, follow the instructions to include the html code in your work. This code will automatically generate the “Some Rights Reserved” button and a statement that your work is licensed under a Creative Commons license, or a “No Rights Reserved” button if you choose to dedicate your work to the public domain. The button is designed to act as a notice to people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed under the applicable Creative Commons license. The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via [http://creativecommons.org/find/ Creative Commons-enabled search engines].<br /> <br /> ====Can I apply a Creative Commons license to an offline work?====<br /> <br /> Yes. For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with a statement such as “This work is licensed under the Creative Commons [insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit [insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.” or insert the applicable license buttons with the same statement and URL link. <br /> <br /> The only difference between applying a Creative Commons license to an offline work and applying it to an online work is that offline works will not include the metadata and, consequently, will not be identified via [http://creativecommons.org/find/ Creative Commons-customized search engines].<br /> <br /> ====How does a Creative Commons license operate?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses give you the ability to dictate how others may exercise your copyright rights—such as the right of others to copy your work, make derivative works or adaptations of your work, to distribute your work and/or make money from your work. They do not give you the ability to restrict anything that is otherwise permitted by exceptions or limitations to copyright—including, importantly, fair use or fair dealing—nor do they give you the ability to control anything that is not protected by copyright law, such as facts and ideas.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses attach to the work and authorize everyone who comes in contact with the work to use it consistent with the license. This means that if Bob has a copy of your Creative Commons-licensed work, Bob can give a copy to Carol and Carol will be authorized to use the work consistent with the Creative Commons license. You then have a license agreement separately with both Bob and Carol.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code). You don’t need to sign anything to get a Creative Commons license—just [http://creativecommons.org/license/ select your license at our ‘Publish’ page]. <br /> <br /> One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.<br /> <br /> ====What things should I think about before I apply a Creative Commons license to my work?====<br /> <br /> We have set out some things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work [[Before Licensing|here]]<br /> <br /> ====Which Creative Commons license should I choose?====<br /> <br /> You should choose the license that meets your preferences. The license is a statement as to what others may do with your work, so you should select a license that matches what you are happy for others to do with your work. You can find [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here].<br /> <br /> You can find out information about how our licenses have been applied by other people to [http://creativecommons.org/text/ text], [http://creativecommons.org/audio/ audio], [http://creativecommons.org/image/ images], [http://creativecommons.org/video/ video] and [http://creativecommons.org/education/ educational works]. <br /> <br /> You can also participate in our [http://creativecommons.org/discuss email discussion lists] and/or review the discussion archives to see if our community is able to respond to your questions and concerns and/or has already addressed them.<br /> <br /> Finally, you can also consult with a lawyer to obtain advice on the best license for your needs. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Will_Creative_Commons_help_me_enforce_my_license?|this question and answer]].<br /> <br /> ====What if I change my mind?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need to sign something or register to obtain a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> No. Creative Commons licenses are designed to be applied to your work and to be binding upon people who use your work based on their notice of the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” (or “No Rights Reserved” in the case of the public domain dedication) button and the statement that the work is Creative Commons-licensed. <br /> <br /> We do not keep track of or a register of which creative works have been licensed under a Creative Commons license. We make the licenses, code and tools available for you to use or not as you wish.<br /> <br /> ====What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/metadata do?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).<br /> <br /> The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.<br /> <br /> The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law. <br /> <br /> The metadata describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through [http://creativecommons.org/find/ customized search engines].<br /> <br /> ====I am in a band; can I use Creative Commons licenses but still collect statutory royalties such as under statutory licenses for public performances?====<br /> <br /> Yes, so long as you choose a “NonCommercial” license option (ie. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) because under these licenses you reserve the right to collect royalties under statutory or compulsory licenses for commercial use of your work. Whether, as a practical matter, you can collect these royalties, depends on which country you are in (check out the answer to the next question).<br /> <br /> Under the Creative Commons licenses that permit other people to make commercial use of your work (ie. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives), the licensor waives the right to collect these royalties.<br /> <br /> ====I am a member of a collecting society, can I use Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> You need to check with your society. Currently, many of the collecting societies in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Taiwan and the Netherlands take an assignment of rights (or in France what is called a “mandate” of rights that nonetheless has the same effect practically as an assignment) from you in present and future works (so that they effectively become the owner of these rights) and manage them for you. So if you are already a member of a collecting society in one of these jurisdictions, you may not be entitled to license your work yourself under a Creative Commons license because the necessary rights are not held by you but by the collecting society. Please also read the FAQ on the website of the Creative Commons project team for your jurisdiction for more information about this issue in your jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons is reaching out to collecting societies in those jurisdictions where this problem arises to try to find a solution that enables creators to enjoy the benefits both systems offer. <br /> <br /> If you encounter difficulties with using Creative Commons licenses because of your membership in a collecting society in your jurisdiction that is not listed above, please let either your country’s Creative Commons [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project team] know or email info@creativecommons.org. Also, if you wish to discuss ways to try to deal with the situation in your country please contact your country’s Creative Commons [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project team]. <br /> <br /> If you are already a member of one of these collecting societies, feel free to encourage your collecting society to give you the option of Creative Commons licensing.<br /> <br /> ====Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work. <br /> <br /> Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.<br /> <br /> One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need to register my copyright?====<br /> <br /> In most jurisdictions, registration is not required. However, for creators in the United States registration can be obtained and is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page, which explains more about copyright registration.<br /> <br /> ====How do I register my copyright?====<br /> <br /> If you are based in the US, to find out more about how to register your copyright, check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page.<br /> <br /> ====Is applying a Creative Commons license to my work the same or an alternative to registering the copyright to my work?====<br /> <br /> No. Applying a Creative Commons license to your work does not give you the same, similar or alternate protection to registering your copyright. Creative Commons licenses apply in addition to and on top of an existing copyright. <br /> <br /> ====Do I need to register my copyright in order to use a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> No. Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are copyrighted. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, copyright protection is automatic for those works that satisfy the requirements of copyright law. Generally, copyright attaches to creative and expressive works once they are fixed in tangible form, ie. the minute you put pen to paper, brush to easel, hit the “save” button on your computer, the “send” button on your email or take a photo.<br /> <br /> For U.S. based creators, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page which explains more about copyright registration.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?====<br /> <br /> You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact. <br /> <br /> ====Do Creative Commons licenses affect fair use, fair dealing or other exceptions to copyright?====<br /> <br /> No. All jurisdictions allow some uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as quotation, current-affairs reporting, or parody, although these vary from country to country. These are not dependent on the license and so cannot be affected by it. To make this clear, all of our licenses include this or similar language: “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.” Thus, regardless of the jurisdiction a user is in, our licenses do not affect a user’s right to use or allow use of content under copyright exceptions.<br /> <br /> ====Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] or listed at the [http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative] should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with its Commons Deed and metadata if you wish to use these licenses and still take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable code and Creative Commons customized search engine technology. You can find more details [http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl here].<br /> <br /> ====Should I use Creative Commons licenses for software documentation?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely. Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.<br /> <br /> ====What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.<br /> <br /> ====Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in a court of law?====<br /> <br /> The Creative Commons Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be enforceable in court. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws and/or the circumstances within which our licenses are applied and Creative Commons-licensed content is used. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.<br /> <br /> ====Will Creative Commons help me enforce my license?====<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, Creative Commons is not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist you with enforcing the licenses. We cannot afford to provide any ancillary services particular to your situation and, in any case, our mission does not include providing such services. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help press that offers form documentation -- at no cost -- for you to use however you see fit. <br /> <br /> However, if you are based in the US, you may be able to find a suitably qualified volunteer lawyer in your area from [http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/help/volunteer%20lawyers.htm this site]. If you are based in Australia, the [http://www.artslaw.com.au/ Arts Law Centre of Australia] may be able to put you in touch with a volunteer lawyer.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms. <br /> <br /> You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Will_Creative_Commons_help_me_enforce_my_license?|this question and answer]].<br /> <br /> ====I don’t like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?====<br /> <br /> If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work.<br /> <br /> In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators “moral rights” which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to “derogatory treatment” of their work; “derogatory treatment” is typically defined as “distortion or mutilation” of the work or treatment, which is “prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.” All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered “derogatory.”<br /> <br /> ===Questions for people thinking about using a Creative Commons-licensed work===<br /> <br /> ====Will Creative Commons give me permission to use a work?====<br /> <br /> The permission isn’t ours to give. Creative Commons simply makes available licenses and tools to enable creators and licensors to license their works on more flexible terms. By applying a Creative Commons license to a work, the creator or licensor has decided to clearly signal to members of the public, such as you, that you may use the work without having to ask for permission—provided that you use it consistent with the license terms.<br /> <br /> ====Does Creative Commons determine what content is released under its licenses?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons, as an organization, does not control how the licenses are used and does not check or verify whether a Creative Commons license has been correctly applied to a particular work. Creative Commons does not endorse or certify any use of its licenses.<br /> <br /> Instead, Creative Commons provides the licenses as a tool that may be adopted (or not) by members of the creative community. Creative Commons does not determine whether the use of the licenses is appropriate for your situation or for a particular work.<br /> <br /> ====What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:<br /> <br /> <br/>Attribution=you must attribute the author and/or licensor in the manner they require.<br /> <br/>NonCommercial=you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.<br /> <br/>NoDerivatives=you may only make verbatim copies of the work, you may not adapt or change it.<br /> <br/>ShareAlike=you may only make derivative works if you license them under the same Creative Commons license terms.<br /> <br /> For an overview of our licenses and links to the Commons Deed and Legal Code, check out [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses this page]. For the key details of our Sampling Licenses check [http://creativecommons.org/about/sampling this page].<br /> <br /> ====So “NonCommercial” means that the work cannot be used commercially?====<br /> <br /> Not quite. The “NonCommercial” license option means that you do not receive the commercial rights via the Creative Commons license. You can always approach the licensor directly to see if they will separately license you the commercial rights.<br /> <br /> ====What does the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” button mean? What does a Creative Commons license do?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license is a signal to you that you can use the work without having to seek out the individual creator or licensor and ask for permission—provided you use the work in the manner permitted by the Creative Commons license. The Commons Deed sets out the key terms governing your use of the work.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if I want to make a different use of the work?====<br /> <br /> If you want to use a Creative Commons-licensed work in a manner that is not permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you need to contact the creator and/or licensor and ask for their permission. If you use a Creative-Commons licensed work contrary to the terms of the Creative Commons license, your right to use the work terminates and you could be sued for infringement of copyright.<br /> <br /> ====So I don’t have to pay to use Creative Commons-licensed works if I comply with the license terms?====<br /> <br /> As a general rule yes—Creative Commons licenses are made available under royalty-free licenses. In the case of Creative Commons-licensed works that are licensed for NonCommercial use only, the creator or licensor reserves the right to collect statutory royalties or royalties under compulsory licenses for commercial uses such as those collected for public performances; so, you may still have to pay a collecting society for such uses of Creative Commons licensed works. However, these are indirect payments, not payments to the licensor.<br /> <br /> ====How do I use a Creative Commons-licensed work?====<br /> <br /> If you come across a work that says it is made available under a Creative Commons license, you are authorized by the licensor to use it consistent with those license terms. You should satisfy yourself that the scope of the license covers your intended uses. Since there are a number of versions of the Creative Commons licenses, you should read the particular license carefully to ensure that the license meets your needs. All Creative Commons licenses require that you attribute the author, licensor and/or any other parties specified by the author/licensor. To correctly use a Creative Commons licensed work, you must provide proper attribution. This is explained in [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work?|the answer below]].<br /> <br /> To get an understanding of the key terms of the license, check out the Commons Deed for the license and/or review [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses this page], which has links to the Commons Deed and basic explanations of all of our licenses.<br /> <br /> ====Does using a Creative Commons-licensed work give me all the rights I need?====<br /> <br /> You should be aware that all of the licenses contain a disclaimer of warranties, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the licensor has all the necessary rights to permit reuse of the licensed work. The disclaimer means that the licensor is not guaranteeing anything about the work, including that she owns the copyright to it, or that she has cleared any uses of third-party content that her work may be based on or incorporate. <br /> <br /> This is typical of so-called “open source” licenses, where works are made widely and freely available for reuse at no charge. The original version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses contained a warranty, but we ultimately concluded that, as with “open source” licenses, warranties and indemnities are best determined separately by private bargain, so that each licensor and licensee can determine the appropriate allocation of risk and reward for their unique situation. One option thus would be to use private contract to obtain a warranty and indemnification from the licensor, although it is likely that the licensor would charge for this benefit. <br /> <br /> As a result of the warranty disclaimer, before using a Creative Commons licensed work, you should satisfy yourself that the person has all the necessary rights to make the work available under a Creative Commons license. You should know that if you are wrong, you could be liable for copyright infringement based on your use of the work.<br /> <br /> You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license.<br /> <br /> The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice. <br /> <br /> ====How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?====<br /> <br /> If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses (Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommerical, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (this is the same as the Music Sharing license)) or under our Developing Nations license, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor. <br /> <br /> You also need to provide the Uniform Resource Locator for the Creative Commons license that applies to the work, together with each copy of the work that you make available.<br /> <br /> If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses or under the Developing Nations license, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”<br /> <br /> If you are sampling a work licensed under one of our Sampling licenses you should credit derivative works you create using those samples by saying something along the lines of: “Remix of the [original work] by [author]” or “Inclusion of a portion of the [original work] by [author] in collage.”<br /> <br /> ====What is a derivative work?====<br /> <br /> A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy. What this means exactly and comprehensively is the subject of many law journal articles and much debate and pontification. In general, a translation from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works. Under Creative Commons’ core licenses, synching music in timed-relation with a moving image is considered to be a derivative work.<br /> <br /> Under U.S. law, generally, changing the format of a work—ie. from print to digital—where the content of the work has not otherwise been changed, would also constitute a derivative work; however, the Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or media. This means that, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, for example, you can copy the work from a digital file to a print file consistent with the terms of that license.<br /> <br /> ====If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work with other works, do I have to Creative Commons license everything else as well?====<br /> <br /> With the exception of those of our licenses that contain the ShareAlike element, the Creative Commons licenses do not require everything else to be Creative Commons licensed as well. We specifically designed the Creative Commons licenses so that they would not turn all other works they were combined with into being Creative Commons-licensed. If you combine any work with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is licensed with a ShareAlike license provision, then, because of the way that the ShareAlike license element operates, the resultant work will need to be licensed under the same license as the original work.<br /> <br /> If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a “collective work” (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection.<br /> <br /> ====Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?====<br /> <br /> Generally yes; you can combine one Creative Commons licensed work with another Creative Commons licensed work or with another work. <br /> <br /> The one big caveat is for Creative Commons licenses that contain the ShareAlike license element (ie. Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). These licenses require derivative works (ie. the result of two combined works) to be licensed under the same license elements. So, you cannot, for example, combine an Attribution-ShareAlike license with an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. If you are combining a work licensed under a ShareAlike license condition, you need to make sure that you are happy and able to license the resulting work under the same license conditions as the original work.<br /> <br /> ====I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?====<br /> <br /> The chart below should give you some assistance in figuring out which Creative Commons license you can use to relicense a work. Some of our licenses just do not, as practical matter, work together. <br /> <br /> The chart below shows blackened cells to indicate licenses that can be used without complication to relicense work licensed under license noted at beginning of each row. To see what license a work that incorporates works under multiple licenses can use, see which columns are filled in for all relevant rows. Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NonCommercial license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NonCommercial license or or one of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs and NonCommercial-SamplingPlus.<br /> <br /> <TABLE WIDTH=594 BORDER=1 BORDERCOLOR="#c0c0c0" CELLPADDING=1 CELLSPACING=3><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western"><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-nd</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-sa</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nd</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-sa</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>nc-sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>publicdomain</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling+</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-nd</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-sa</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nd</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-sa</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>nc-sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>publicdomain</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> </TABLE><br /> <br /> <br /> The above chart only displays which licenses are, as a practical matter, incompatible. It is not a substitute for obtaining your own legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or represented as legal advice. As explained above, Creative Commons is not able to provide you with legal advice. You need to independently assess which Creative Commons license is suitable for your requirements and your obligations to upstream licensors.<br /> <br /> ===Technical Questions=== <br /> <br /> ====I want to give users of my site the option to choose Creative Commons licensing; how do I do that?====<br /> <br /> You can directly integrate the Creative Commons license selection engine into your site. This can be useful if you have an application or website that allows people to contribute content and you want to give them the option to apply Creative Commons licenses to their works. Here is a [http://creativecommons.org/technology/web-integration step-by-step guide] on how to integrate our license selection engine with a website. We also have a [http://api.creativecommons.org web services API] for integration with any application.<br /> <br /> ====Why did Creative Commons choose to use the RDF format for its metadata?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons looked for the best way to express the intent behind the licenses in machine-readable form. We feel that our system provides the best of all possible worlds: RDF, XML, and even plain text-based tools can easily process our metadata files because we provide them with a structured format. But just as XML tools make it easier to process the information than text-based ones, RDF ones make it even easier -- so we encourage all of our developers to use RDF tools where possible. We're also working with the community to provide CC sample code, in many different languages, that shows how easy it is to take advantage of the RDF information. We're also open to providing converters from RDF to other formats. If you have such a tool or would like one, please send information about it to our metadata list.<br /> <br /> ====How can I use Creative Commons metadata in my program?====<br /> <br /> You can use it in a variety of ways. A painting, writing, or drawing program could let its users know about their rights granted by the licensor of the file. File sharing software could highlight files with Creative Commons licenses and encourage users to download them. In fact, we see peer-to-peer file sharing software as an excellent distribution mechanism for Creative Commons works, especially large music, picture, and movie files that the authors might not have the bandwidth or tools necessary to distribute themselves. Search systems could allow users the choice of only searching for files with licenses that permit certain uses (such as searching for pictures of cats that you can include in your non-commercial collage). There are many ways to take advantage of this information and we hope the developer community will surprise us by coming up with others!<br /> <br /> ====I'd prefer to use a PNG image instead of a GIF image or vice versa. What should I do?====<br /> <br /> We provide license buttons in both formats. Change, e.g., [http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gif somerights20.gif] to [http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png somerights20.png] or vice versa.<br /> <br /> ===Questions about using Creative Commons’ logo===<br /> <br /> ====Where can I get a high resolution version of the Creative Commons logos?====<br /> <br /> You can get high resolution versions of the Creative Commons logos and license buttons [http://creativecommons.org/presskit/ here]. Creative Commons only authorizes the use of our logos, name and license buttons in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies].<br /> <br /> ====I want to print out some t-shirts & stickers with Creative Commons logos; how do I go about doing this?====<br /> <br /> We’re glad you are excited about Creative Commons and want to spread the message. We only authorize use of our logo, name and license buttons in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies], ie. to linkback to the Creative Commons website, a Creative Commons license and/or otherwise describe a Creative Commons license that applies to a work.<br /> <br /> You can support Creative Commons and purchase t-shirts and stickers via our [http://creativecommons.org/support/store]. In addition, movies about Creative Commons are available for download [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/ here].<br /> <br /> ====I want to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into my site or work, can I?====<br /> <br /> You are welcome to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into your site or work if you do so in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies page]. Basically, we only authorize use of the Creative Commons corporate logo (that is the name Creative Commons and the “CC” in a circle) to link back to our website; and our “Some Rights Reserved” and “No Rights Reserved” buttons as well as our license element buttons (ie. the Attribution license button, the NonCommercial license button etc.) to be used to link back to our respective licenses.<br /> <br /> ====Can I change the Creative Commons logos so that they look better on my site or with my work?====<br /> <br /> Please don’t change our logo so that it works better with the look of your site or work. Our “Some Rights Reserved” and “No Rights Reserved” buttons need to be used consistently because they are our trademark and a core part of our licensing system. You can also use the license elements buttons that are in black and white to signal that your work or site is licensed under the relevant Creative Commons license; this is also explained at our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies page].<br /> <br /> ===About Creative Commons===<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons against copyright?====<br /> <br /> Not at all. Our licenses help you retain your copyright and manage your copyright in a more flexible, open way. In fact, our licenses rely upon copyright for their enforcement. The justification for intellectual property protection (under U.S. law, at least) is the "promot[ion of] the progress of science and the useful arts." We want to promote science and the useful arts, too, and believe that helping creators or licensors fine-tune the exercise of their rights to suit their preferences helps do just that.<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely not. We believe in the Net, not an information bank controlled by a single organization. We are building tools so that the semantic web can identify and sort licensed works in a distributed, decentralized manner. We are not in the business of collecting content, or building databases of content.<br /> <br /> Now, to give you an idea of the sorts of uses that can be made of our licenses and metadata, we've provided some examples on our site for [http://creativecommons.org/text/ text], [http://creativecommons.org/audio/ audio], [http://creativecommons.org/image/ images], [http://creativecommons.org/video/ video] and [http://creativecommons.org/education/ educational works]. It's by no means a comprehensive catalog of everything being done with Creative Commons licenses today, nor is it the beginnings of a database. They are simply illustrations of some works, in a variety of media, that have been Creative Commons licensed so far.<br /> <br /> ====Will works that use Creative Commons licenses be in the "public domain"?====<br /> <br /> No, because the licensor does not give up all rights to his or her work. The Creative Commons licenses are only copyright licenses that enable you to control how other people use your work. <br /> <br /> If you want to put your work in the public domain -- the realm of creative material unfettered by copyright law – you can use our [http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain Public Domain Dedication]. By dedicating your work to the public domain, you are effectively relinquishing all copyright interests you may otherwise have in the work. However, this waiver may not be valid outside of the US.<br /> <br /> ====What is Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Structurally, Creative Commons is a Massachusetts, US, US charitable corporation . Also working to promote the idea of Creative Commons are volunteer project leads in each of the jurisdictions to which Creative Commons licenses have been ported. Creative Commons International and the volunteer [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project leads] are independent and separate entities although both work in collaboration to promote the adoption of Creative Commons licenses and tools. <br /> <br /> The idea underlying Creative Commons is that some people may not want to exercise all of the intellectual property rights the law affords them. We believe there is an unmet demand for an easy yet reliable way to tell the world “Some rights reserved” or even “No rights reserved.” Many people have long since concluded that all-out copyright doesn't help them gain the exposure and widespread distribution they want. Many entrepreneurs and artists have come to prefer relying on innovative business models rather than full-fledged copyright to secure a return on their creative investment. Still others get fulfillment from contributing to and participating in an intellectual commons. For whatever reasons, it is clear that many citizens of the Internet want to share their work -- and the power to reuse, modify, and distribute their work -- with others on generous terms. Creative Commons intends to help people express this preference for sharing by offering the world a set of licenses on our Website, at no charge.<br /> <br /> ====Who started Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Cyberlaw and intellectual property experts James Boyle, Michael Carroll, and Lawrence Lessig, MIT computer science professor Hal Abelson, lawyer-turned-documentary filmmaker-turned-cyberlaw expert Eric Saltzman, and public domain Web publisher Eric Eldred founded Creative Commons in 2001. Fellows and students at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School helped get the project off the ground and, for the first couple of years of its existence, Creative Commons was housed at and received generous support from Stanford Law School and the Center for Internet & Society. <br /> <br /> ====What problem does Creative Commons intend to solve?====<br /> <br /> With the advent of the digital revolution and the Internet, it is suddenly possible to distribute works in a variety of formats of a high, often professional quality; to work collaboratively across contexts; and to create new, derivative or collective works—on a global level, in a decentralised manner, and at comparatively low cost. <br /> <br /> This presents an opportunity for an enormous and unprecedented stimulation of creativity and production of knowledge. As more and more people are interconnected and communicating, it becomes easier to obtain exactly the content one needs or want and to complete tasks and solve problems by the cooperation this interconnection enables. The convergence of technologies and media also create multiple new possibilities for creating derivatives of existing works -- for example, remixes and mashups. <br /> <br /> Another notable aspect is that globalization is not only happening on the corporate level, its effects can also be observed in the areas of science and education and in other sectors of society where new models of fruitful cooperation have appeared. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia and the free and open source software community are examples of these sociological and economic phenomena. The activities of many contributors to projects in these areas are not motivated by the desire to gain (immediate) financial benefit but by the desire to learn, to get recognition, and also to help others. <br /> <br /> The downside of these exciting new developments and possibilities is that the new technologies can also be used to violate the rights of copyright owners as they are currently defined. In turn, major right holders have reacted to this by a fourfold strategy: (a) by trying to prevent the deployment of technologies that can be put to infringing uses; (b) by developing tools that enable them to manage their rights with an amount of precision hitherto unknown and unthinkable: digital rights management and technological protection measures against unauthorised copying; (c) by successfully lobbying for support of these technological measures through legal restrictions; and, (d) by starting huge publicity campaigns designed to teach young people that they must keep their hands off copyrighted material - or else. <br /> <br /> These responses are understandable, if regrettable. Our concern is that their combined effect will be to stifle the opportunities for digital technologies to be used widely to encourage creativity and for the problem-solving and collaboration discussed above. If creators and licensors have to negotiate not only complicated legal rules, but also burdensome technical barriers, many will either ignore the rules or not create.<br /> <br /> Our alternative is to provide creators and licensors with a simple way to say what freedoms they want their creative work to carry. This in turn makes it easy to share, or build upon creative work. It makes it possible for creators and licensors to reserve some rights while releasing others. This, at its core, is our mission. Copyright gives authors certain rights. We want to make it simpler for authors to exercise those rights in ways others can understand. <br /> <br /> ====Does it cost me anything to use the Creative Commons licenses & tools?====<br /> <br /> Nope. They're free.<br /> <br /> ====Who funds Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons was founded with a generous donation from the Center for the Public Domain and receives ongoing support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network. We continue to seek donations from other sources, including foundations, individuals, and government grants. If you would like to support Creative Commons, feel free to do so at our [http://creativecommons.org/support/ support page].<br /> <br /> ====Whom does Creative Commons serve or represent?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons serves creators and users of creative works and the public interest that benefits from greater collaboration using creative materials. We help people who want to license their work on generous terms, people who want to make creative uses of those works, and people who benefit from this symbiosis. We hope that teachers, scholars, scientists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, musicians, graphic designers, Web hobbyists -- as well as listeners, readers, and viewers -- gain from the use of our tools.<br /> <br /> ====Where is Creative Commons based?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation that draws on the work of geographically distributed staff and volunteers. Our main offices are in San Francisco, US and London, United Kingdom.<br /> <br /> ====Does Creative Commons host or own any content?====<br /> <br /> Our primary mission is to help you license your work, offer you tools to more easily publish your works, and point to examples of CC-licensed content from our featured works. We also offer ways for users to find licensed works and easily understand their license terms. <br /> <br /> We do, however, also host content on its [http://ccmixter.org ccMixter site].<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons involved in digital rights management (DRM)?====<br /> <br /> No. We are in the business of digital rights expression, not management. Our tools make it easy to say what rights an author is reserving. But we do not provide tools for enforcing the rights the author reserves. Digital rights management (or “DRM”) does. In addition to digitally expressing rights, a DRM system provides technology for enforcing those rights. <br /> <br /> Why don’t we use technology to enforce rights? There are too many reasons to describe here. Perhaps the most familiar is the fact that technology cannot protect freedoms such as “fair use.” Put differently, “fair use” can’t be coded. But more importantly, we believe, technological enforcement burdens unplanned creative reuse of creative work. We want to encourage such use. And we, along with many others, are concerned that the ecology for creativity will be stifled by the pervasive use of technology to “manage” rights. <br /> <br /> Copyrights should be respected, no doubt. But we prefer they be respected the old fashioned way — by people acting to respect the freedoms, and limits, chosen by the author and enforced by the law.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?====<br /> <br /> If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from "distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."<br /> <br /> ====I love what Creative Commons does. How can I help?====<br /> <br /> We would be very grateful for your help. You are welcome to support Creative Commons Corporation by [http://creativecommons.org/support/ making a donation at our Support page]. In exchange for your donation, you'll receive a variety of items, depending on level. Donations and shipping addresses are handled by Paypal.<br /> <br /> You can also give us feedback directly at info@creativecommons.org. Alternately, you can participate in our [http://creativecommons.org/discuss email discussion lists].<br /> <br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines&diff=5289 DiscussionDraftNonCommercial Guidelines 2007-02-17T03:37:07Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* PROPOSED BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF “NONCOMMERCIAL” IN THE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES */</p> <hr /> <div>=PROPOSED BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF “NONCOMMERCIAL” IN THE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES=<br /> <br /> ==What role do these guidelines play?==<br /> <br /> These guidelines are a discussion draft only. They are not finalized and they do not represent a definitive explanation of what "NonCommercial" means, in particular they do not represent a definitive statement as to what Creative Commons defines "NonCommercial" to mean.<br /> <br /> The purpose of these guidelines is twofold: (1) to demonstrate that it may be possible to reconcile competing views about what NonCommercial means and to provide a flexible set of parameters within which people can understand the term; and, (2) to elicit feedback about whether these guidelines accurate reflect the community's (including both licensors and licensees) understanding of the term.<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> <br /> The purpose of these guidelines is clarify some of the easier use cases of what does and does not constitute a permitted noncommercial use under the Creative Commons licenses that contain the NonCommercial license element. These guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive but are instead intended to assist creators and users to better understand the scope of permitted uses.<br /> <br /> These guidelines apply to those activities that exercise a right licensed under the Creative Commons license, ie. the act of copying a work or distributing a work. It does not apply to an activity that constitutes a fair use of a C-licensed work. It also does not apply if, for example, you use the ideas expressed in a work.<br /> <br /> ==A. Nature of the User:==<br /> <br /> (1) Is the person making use of an NC-licensed work an “allowable NC user” under the noncommercial license condition? Allowable NC users are:<br /> <br /> (a) an Individual<br /> (b) a Nonprofit educational institution/library, <br /> (c) a Nonprofit organization as defined under US or equivalent law [1], (together with (1) and (2) “allowable NC users”)<br /> (d) A commercial copy shop, ISP, search engine, content aggregator, blog aggregator site or similar service provider who, in the course of providing a service at the direction of the allowable NC user, may exercise a right licensed under the Creative Commons license.<br /> <br /> (i) No. License violation – this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> (ii) Yes. Continue to Question B.<br /> <br /> ==B. Nature of the use: Advertising==<br /> <br /> (1) Is the NC-licensed content being used in an advertisement for third party products or services? For example, is Brian’s CC BY-NC licensed photo of the Eiffel Tower being used to advertise bottled water made by Shaun’s company.<br /> <br /> (i) Yes. License violation, this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> (ii) No. Continue to the next question.<br /> <br /> (2) Is viewing of an advertisement for third party products or services required as a condition of accessing or viewing the NC-licensed content (eg. “click-through” advertising)? For example, in order to view Mary’s CC BY-NC-ND licensed article, does a person first see an advertisement for a car.<br /> <br /> (i) Yes – license violation; this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> (ii) No. Continue to the next question.<br /> <br /> (3) Is the NC-licensed work being used in connection with advertisements for third party products or services where the NC-licensed work is the primary draw or a is substantial amount, both qualitatively and quantitatively? For example, does a podcast consisting solely of CC BY-NC-SA licensed music have ads for a record store at the start and end of the podcast.<br /> <br /> (i) Yes - license violation; this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> (ii) No. Continue to the next question.<br /> <br /> ==C. Conditions on Use: For Services Provided==<br /> <br /> (1) Is money changing hands in exchange for a service provided in connection with the NC-licensed work? For example, is a copy shop charging for the service of making a copy or is a search engine receiving ad revenue for ads served up when searching for NC-licensed content.<br /> <br /> (i) No. Continue to Question D<br /> (ii) Yes, continue to the next question.<br /> <br /> (2) Is money changing hands for a service being provided to (in the case of, for example, a for-profit copy shop) or by an allowable NC user incidental to the use of the NC-licensed work (e.g. course packs provided by an educational institutions)? <br /> <br /> (i) Yes - this is a noncommercial use.<br /> (ii) No, continue to Question D. <br /> <br /> ==D. Conditions on Use: Original work==<br /> <br /> (1) Is there any money changing hands in any one of the following ways in connection with the verbatim use of the NC licensed work?<br /> <br /> <br /> (a) As a condition of using the NC-licensed work (eg. by levying a direct charge or charging subscription fees for access to NC-licensed work(s)), license violation – this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> <br /> (b) As a condition of using another work that includes an NC-licensed work, where the NC-licensed work is either the primary draw or a substantial amount, whether qualitatively or quantitatively (eg. where an NC-licensed image is used on the cover of and as a central part of a book that is sold commercially), license violation – this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> <br /> (c) As a condition of using another work that includes a verbatim NC-licensed work, where the NC-licensed work is not the primary draw or is an insubstantial amount, both qualitatively and quantitatively (eg. where one NC-licensed image is used in a book that is sold commercially and the image is not a thematically significant part of the book) - this is a noncommercial use (provided that there is no charge associated with directly accessing the work.)<br /> <br /> (d) As an optional contribution (e.g. a tip jar, donations, membership drive) for an individual, an educational institution or nonprofit organization that uses the verbatim NC-licensed work or another work that includes a verbatim NC-licensed work – this is a noncommercial use.<br /> <br /> ==E. Conditions on Use: Derivative Works==<br /> <br /> (1) Is the money changing hands in connection with a derivative use of an NC licensed work?<br /> <br /> (a) If the derivative work based on an NC-licensed work is subject to a “ShareAlike” license condition, then the permitted uses of the derivative work should be assessed in accordance with D.<br /> <br /> (b) For derivative works based on NC licensed work that are not subject to a “ShareAlike” license condition, money many change hands in at least one of three ways:<br /> <br /> (i) As a condition of using a derivative work based on an NC-licensed work, of which the original NC-licensed work is the primary draw or a substantial amount, either qualitatively or quantitatively, of that derivative work (eg. where a commercially released short film is made using a CC BY-NC licensed piece of music and the music is the sole audio component of the film), license violation – this is not a noncommercial use.<br /> <br /> (ii) As a condition of using a derivative work based on an NC-licensed work, of which the original NC-licensed work is not the primary draw or is an insubstantial amount, both qualitatively and quantitatively, of that derivative work (eg. a commercially released mash-up is made of a piece of CC BY-NC licensed music that is used only incidentally in the mash-up) – this is a noncommercial use.<br /> <br /> (iii) As an optional contribution (e.g. a tip jar, donations, membership drive) for an individual, an educational institution or nonprofit organization that uses the derivative work based on the NC-licensed work – this is a noncommercial use.<br /> <br /> ***<br /> <br /> [1] The IRS definition of 501(c)(3) organization is an organization whose charitable purpose falls into one of the following categories: (i) religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or prevention of cruelty to children or animals organizations; (ii) and, whose operations are restricted in the following ways: (a) dedicate assets to charitable purposes; (b) service public purposes; (c) participate insubstantially in social activities; (d) participate insubstantially in legislative activity; (e) do not engage in political activity (e.g. do not accept contributions or make expenditures for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state or local public office or office in a political organization.) Note that we may have to limit the definition of “nonprofit” to only nonprofits that have a educational, charitable, scientific, literary (ie. not religious) purpose.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&diff=5143 Frequently Asked Questions 2007-01-10T19:07:39Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* I want to print out some t-shirts & stickers with Creative Commons logos; how do I go about doing this? */</p> <hr /> <div>Please note that Creative Commons does not provide legal advice, so while this FAQ is designed to be helpful in raising awareness about the use of our licenses, it is by nature not a complete discussion nor a substitute for legal advice. It may not cover important issues that affect you and, depending on your situation, you may wish to consult with a lawyer.<br /> <br /> ===Questions for people thinking about applying a Creative Commons license to their work===<br /> <br /> ====How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work?====<br /> <br /> For online works, you apply a Creative Commons license to a work by [http://creativecommons.org/license/ selecting the license that suits your preferences]. Once you have selected your license, and if you are applying it to an online work, follow the instructions to include the html code in your work. This code will automatically generate the “Some Rights Reserved” button and a statement that your work is licensed under a Creative Commons license, or a “No Rights Reserved” button if you choose to dedicate your work to the public domain. The button is designed to act as a notice to people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed under the applicable Creative Commons license. The html code will also include the metadata that enables your work to found via [http://creativecommons.org/find/ Creative Commons-enabled search engines].<br /> <br /> ====Can I apply a Creative Commons license to an offline work?====<br /> <br /> Yes. For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with a statement such as “This work is licensed under the Creative Commons [insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit [insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.” or insert the applicable license buttons with the same statement and URL link. <br /> <br /> The only difference between applying a Creative Commons license to an offline work and applying it to an online work is that offline works will not include the metadata and, consequently, will not be identified via [http://creativecommons.org/find/ Creative Commons-customized search engines].<br /> <br /> ====How does a Creative Commons license operate?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses give you the ability to dictate how others may exercise your copyright rights—such as the right of others to copy your work, make derivative works or adaptations of your work, to distribute your work and/or make money from your work. They do not give you the ability to restrict anything that is otherwise permitted by exceptions or limitations to copyright—including, importantly, fair use or fair dealing—nor do they give you the ability to control anything that is not protected by copyright law, such as facts and ideas.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses attach to the work and authorize everyone who comes in contact with the work to use it consistent with the license. This means that if Bob has a copy of your Creative Commons-licensed work, Bob can give a copy to Carol and Carol will be authorized to use the work consistent with the Creative Commons license. You then have a license agreement separately with both Bob and Carol.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code). You don’t need to sign anything to get a Creative Commons license—just [http://creativecommons.org/license/ select your license at our ‘Publish’ page]. <br /> <br /> One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.<br /> <br /> ====What things should I think about before I apply a Creative Commons license to my work?====<br /> <br /> We have set out some things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work [[Before Licensing|here]]<br /> <br /> ====Which Creative Commons license should I choose?====<br /> <br /> You should choose the license that meets your preferences. The license is a statement as to what others may do with your work, so you should select a license that matches what you are happy for others to do with your work. You can find [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here].<br /> <br /> You can find out information about how our licenses have been applied by other people to [http://creativecommons.org/text/ text], [http://creativecommons.org/audio/ audio], [http://creativecommons.org/image/ images], [http://creativecommons.org/video/ video] and [http://creativecommons.org/education/ educational works]. <br /> <br /> You can also participate in our [http://creativecommons.org/discuss email discussion lists] and/or review the discussion archives to see if our community is able to respond to your questions and concerns and/or has already addressed them.<br /> <br /> Finally, you can also consult with a lawyer to obtain advice on the best license for your needs. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Will_Creative_Commons_help_me_enforce_my_license?|this question and answer]].<br /> <br /> ====What if I change my mind?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need to sign something or register to obtain a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> No. Creative Commons licenses are designed to be applied to your work and to be binding upon people who use your work based on their notice of the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” (or “No Rights Reserved” in the case of the public domain dedication) button and the statement that the work is Creative Commons-licensed. <br /> <br /> We do not keep track of or a register of which creative works have been licensed under a Creative Commons license. We make the licenses, code and tools available for you to use or not as you wish.<br /> <br /> ====What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/metadata do?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).<br /> <br /> The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.<br /> <br /> The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law. <br /> <br /> The metadata describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through [http://creativecommons.org/find/ customized search engines].<br /> <br /> ====I am in a band; can I use Creative Commons licenses but still collect statutory royalties such as under statutory licenses for public performances?====<br /> <br /> Yes, so long as you choose a “NonCommercial” license option (ie. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) because under these licenses you reserve the right to collect royalties under statutory or compulsory licenses for commercial use of your work. Whether, as a practical matter, you can collect these royalties, depends on which country you are in (check out the answer to the next question).<br /> <br /> Under the Creative Commons licenses that permit other people to make commercial use of your work (ie. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives), the licensor waives the right to collect these royalties.<br /> <br /> ====I am a member of a collecting society, can I use Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> You need to check with your society. Currently, many of the collecting societies in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Taiwan and the Netherlands take an assignment of rights (or in France what is called a “mandate” of rights that nonetheless has the same effect practically as an assignment) from you in present and future works (so that they effectively become the owner of these rights) and manage them for you. So if you are already a member of a collecting society in one of these jurisdictions, you may not be entitled to license your work yourself under a Creative Commons license because the necessary rights are not held by you but by the collecting society. Please also read the FAQ on the website of the Creative Commons project team for your jurisdiction for more information about this issue in your jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons is reaching out to collecting societies in those jurisdictions where this problem arises to try to find a solution that enables creators to enjoy the benefits both systems offer. <br /> <br /> If you encounter difficulties with using Creative Commons licenses because of your membership in a collecting society in your jurisdiction that is not listed above, please let either your country’s Creative Commons [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project team] know or email info@creativecommons.org. Also, if you wish to discuss ways to try to deal with the situation in your country please contact your country’s Creative Commons [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project team]. <br /> <br /> If you are already a member of one of these collecting societies, feel free to encourage your collecting society to give you the option of Creative Commons licensing.<br /> <br /> ====Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work. <br /> <br /> Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.<br /> <br /> One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need to register my copyright?====<br /> <br /> In most jurisdictions, registration is not required. However, for creators in the United States registration can be obtained and is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page, which explains more about copyright registration.<br /> <br /> ====How do I register my copyright?====<br /> <br /> If you are based in the US, to find out more about how to register your copyright, check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page.<br /> <br /> ====Is applying a Creative Commons license to my work the same or an alternative to registering the copyright to my work?====<br /> <br /> No. Applying a Creative Commons license to your work does not give you the same, similar or alternate protection to registering your copyright. Creative Commons licenses apply in addition to and on top of an existing copyright. <br /> <br /> ====Do I need to register my copyright in order to use a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> No. Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are copyrighted. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, copyright protection is automatic for those works that satisfy the requirements of copyright law. Generally, copyright attaches to creative and expressive works once they are fixed in tangible form, ie. the minute you put pen to paper, brush to easel, hit the “save” button on your computer, the “send” button on your email or take a photo.<br /> <br /> For U.S. based creators, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Copyright Basics]’ page which explains more about copyright registration.<br /> <br /> ====Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?====<br /> <br /> You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact. <br /> <br /> ====Do Creative Commons licenses affect fair use, fair dealing or other exceptions to copyright?====<br /> <br /> No. All jurisdictions allow some uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as quotation, current-affairs reporting, or parody, although these vary from country to country. These are not dependent on the license and so cannot be affected by it. To make this clear, all of our licenses include this or similar language: “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.” Thus, regardless of the jurisdiction a user is in, our licenses do not affect a user’s right to use or allow use of content under copyright exceptions.<br /> <br /> ====Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] or listed at the [http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative] should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. <br /> <br /> Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with its Commons Deed and metadata if you wish to use these licenses and still take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable code and Creative Commons customized search engine technology. You can find more details [http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl here].<br /> <br /> ====Should I use Creative Commons licenses for software documentation?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely. Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.<br /> <br /> ====What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?====<br /> <br /> As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.<br /> <br /> ====Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in a court of law?====<br /> <br /> The Creative Commons Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be enforceable in court. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws and/or the circumstances within which our licenses are applied and Creative Commons-licensed content is used. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.<br /> <br /> ====Will Creative Commons help me enforce my license?====<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, Creative Commons is not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist you with enforcing the licenses. We cannot afford to provide any ancillary services particular to your situation and, in any case, our mission does not include providing such services. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help press that offers form documentation -- at no cost -- for you to use however you see fit. <br /> <br /> However, if you are based in the US, you may be able to find a suitably qualified volunteer lawyer in your area from [http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/help/volunteer%20lawyers.htm this site]. If you are based in Australia, the [http://www.artslaw.com.au/ Arts Law Centre of Australia] may be able to put you in touch with a volunteer lawyer.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms. <br /> <br /> You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Will_Creative_Commons_help_me_enforce_my_license?|this question and answer]].<br /> <br /> ====I don’t like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?====<br /> <br /> If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work.<br /> <br /> In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators “moral rights” which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to “derogatory treatment” of their work; “derogatory treatment” is typically defined as “distortion or mutilation” of the work or treatment, which is “prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.” All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered “derogatory.”<br /> <br /> ===Questions for people thinking about using a Creative Commons-licensed work===<br /> <br /> ====Will Creative Commons give me permission to use a work?====<br /> <br /> The permission isn’t ours to give. Creative Commons simply makes available licenses and tools to enable creators and licensors to license their works on more flexible terms. By applying a Creative Commons license to a work, the creator or licensor has decided to clearly signal to members of the public, such as you, that you may use the work without having to ask for permission—provided that you use it consistent with the license terms.<br /> <br /> ====Does Creative Commons determine what content is released under its licenses?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons, as an organization, does not control how the licenses are used and does not check or verify whether a Creative Commons license has been correctly applied to a particular work. Creative Commons does not endorse or certify any use of its licenses.<br /> <br /> Instead, Creative Commons provides the licenses as a tool that may be adopted (or not) by members of the creative community. Creative Commons does not determine whether the use of the licenses is appropriate for your situation or for a particular work.<br /> <br /> ====What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?====<br /> <br /> The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:<br /> <br /> <br/>Attribution=you must attribute the author and/or licensor in the manner they require.<br /> <br/>NonCommercial=you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.<br /> <br/>NoDerivatives=you may only make verbatim copies of the work, you may not adapt or change it.<br /> <br/>ShareAlike=you may only make derivative works if you license them under the same Creative Commons license terms.<br /> <br /> For an overview of our licenses and links to the Commons Deed and Legal Code, check out [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses this page]. For the key details of our Sampling Licenses check [http://creativecommons.org/about/sampling this page].<br /> <br /> ====So “NonCommercial” means that the work cannot be used commercially?====<br /> <br /> Not quite. The “NonCommercial” license option means that you do not receive the commercial rights via the Creative Commons license. You can always approach the licensor directly to see if they will separately license you the commercial rights.<br /> <br /> ====What does the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” button mean? What does a Creative Commons license do?====<br /> <br /> A Creative Commons license is a signal to you that you can use the work without having to seek out the individual creator or licensor and ask for permission—provided you use the work in the manner permitted by the Creative Commons license. The Commons Deed sets out the key terms governing your use of the work.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if I want to make a different use of the work?====<br /> <br /> If you want to use a Creative Commons-licensed work in a manner that is not permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you need to contact the creator and/or licensor and ask for their permission. If you use a Creative-Commons licensed work contrary to the terms of the Creative Commons license, your right to use the work terminates and you could be sued for infringement of copyright.<br /> <br /> ====So I don’t have to pay to use Creative Commons-licensed works if I comply with the license terms?====<br /> <br /> As a general rule yes—Creative Commons licenses are made available under royalty-free licenses. In the case of Creative Commons-licensed works that are licensed for NonCommercial use only, the creator or licensor reserves the right to collect statutory royalties or royalties under compulsory licenses for commercial uses such as those collected for public performances; so, you may still have to pay a collecting society for such uses of Creative Commons licensed works. However, these are indirect payments, not payments to the licensor.<br /> <br /> ====How do I use a Creative Commons-licensed work?====<br /> <br /> If you come across a work that says it is made available under a Creative Commons license, you are authorized by the licensor to use it consistent with those license terms. You should satisfy yourself that the scope of the license covers your intended uses. Since there are a number of versions of the Creative Commons licenses, you should read the particular license carefully to ensure that the license meets your needs. All Creative Commons licenses require that you attribute the author, licensor and/or any other parties specified by the author/licensor. To correctly use a Creative Commons licensed work, you must provide proper attribution. This is explained in [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work?|the answer below]].<br /> <br /> To get an understanding of the key terms of the license, check out the Commons Deed for the license and/or review [http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses this page], which has links to the Commons Deed and basic explanations of all of our licenses.<br /> <br /> ====Does using a Creative Commons-licensed work give me all the rights I need?====<br /> <br /> You should be aware that all of the licenses contain a disclaimer of warranties, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the licensor has all the necessary rights to permit reuse of the licensed work. The disclaimer means that the licensor is not guaranteeing anything about the work, including that she owns the copyright to it, or that she has cleared any uses of third-party content that her work may be based on or incorporate. <br /> <br /> This is typical of so-called “open source” licenses, where works are made widely and freely available for reuse at no charge. The original version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses contained a warranty, but we ultimately concluded that, as with “open source” licenses, warranties and indemnities are best determined separately by private bargain, so that each licensor and licensee can determine the appropriate allocation of risk and reward for their unique situation. One option thus would be to use private contract to obtain a warranty and indemnification from the licensor, although it is likely that the licensor would charge for this benefit. <br /> <br /> As a result of the warranty disclaimer, before using a Creative Commons licensed work, you should satisfy yourself that the person has all the necessary rights to make the work available under a Creative Commons license. You should know that if you are wrong, you could be liable for copyright infringement based on your use of the work.<br /> <br /> You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license.<br /> <br /> The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice. <br /> <br /> ====How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?====<br /> <br /> If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses (Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommerical, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (this is the same as the Music Sharing license)) or under our Developing Nations license, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor. <br /> <br /> You also need to provide the Uniform Resource Locator for the Creative Commons license that applies to the work, together with each copy of the work that you make available.<br /> <br /> If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses or under the Developing Nations license, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”<br /> <br /> If you are sampling a work licensed under one of our Sampling licenses you should credit derivative works you create using those samples by saying something along the lines of: “Remix of the [original work] by [author]” or “Inclusion of a portion of the [original work] by [author] in collage.”<br /> <br /> ====What is a derivative work?====<br /> <br /> A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy. What this means exactly and comprehensively is the subject of many law journal articles and much debate and pontification. In general, a translation from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works. Under Creative Commons’ core licenses, synching music in timed-relation with a moving image is considered to be a derivative work.<br /> <br /> Under U.S. law, generally, changing the format of a work—ie. from print to digital—where the content of the work has not otherwise been changed, would also constitute a derivative work; however, the Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or media. This means that, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, for example, you can copy the work from a digital file to a print file consistent with the terms of that license.<br /> <br /> ====If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work with other works, do I have to Creative Commons license everything else as well?====<br /> <br /> With the exception of those of our licenses that contain the ShareAlike element, the Creative Commons licenses do not require everything else to be Creative Commons licensed as well. We specifically designed the Creative Commons licenses so that they would not turn all other works they were combined with into being Creative Commons-licensed. If you combine any work with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is licensed with a ShareAlike license provision, then, because of the way that the ShareAlike license element operates, the resultant work will need to be licensed under the same license as the original work.<br /> <br /> If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a “collective work” (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection.<br /> <br /> ====Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?====<br /> <br /> Generally yes; you can combine one Creative Commons licensed work with another Creative Commons licensed work or with another work. <br /> <br /> The one big caveat is for Creative Commons licenses that contain the ShareAlike license element (ie. Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). These licenses require derivative works (ie. the result of two combined works) to be licensed under the same license elements. So, you cannot, for example, combine an Attribution-ShareAlike license with an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. If you are combining a work licensed under a ShareAlike license condition, you need to make sure that you are happy and able to license the resulting work under the same license conditions as the original work.<br /> <br /> ====I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?====<br /> <br /> The chart below should give you some assistance in figuring out which Creative Commons license you can use to relicense a work. Some of our licenses just do not, as practical matter, work together. <br /> <br /> The chart below shows blackened cells to indicate licenses that can be used without complication to relicense work licensed under license noted at beginning of each row. To see what license a work that incorporates works under multiple licenses can use, see which columns are filled in for all relevant rows. Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NonCommercial license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NonCommercial license or or one of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs and NonCommercial-SamplingPlus.<br /> <br /> <TABLE WIDTH=594 BORDER=1 BORDERCOLOR="#c0c0c0" CELLPADDING=1 CELLSPACING=3><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western"><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-nd</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-sa</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nd</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-sa</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>nc-sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>publicdomain</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling+</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc</B></P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-nd</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nc-sa</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-nd</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>by-sa</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>nc-sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>publicdomain</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> <TR><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><B>sampling+</B></P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=18><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=23><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=72 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> <br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=95><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=63 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> <br /> </TD><br /> <TD WIDTH=73 BGCOLOR="#000000"><br /> <P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER><BR><br /> </P><br /> </TD><br /> </TR><br /> </TABLE><br /> <br /> <br /> The above chart only displays which licenses are, as a practical matter, incompatible. It is not a substitute for obtaining your own legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or represented as legal advice. As explained above, Creative Commons is not able to provide you with legal advice. You need to independently assess which Creative Commons license is suitable for your requirements and your obligations to upstream licensors.<br /> <br /> ===Technical Questions=== <br /> <br /> ====I want to give users of my site the option to choose Creative Commons licensing; how do I do that?====<br /> <br /> You can directly integrate the Creative Commons license selection engine into your site. This can be useful if you have an application or website that allows people to contribute content and you want to give them the option to apply Creative Commons licenses to their works. Here is a [http://creativecommons.org/technology/web-integration step-by-step guide] on how to integrate our license selection engine with a website. We also have a [http://api.creativecommons.org web services API] for integration with any application.<br /> <br /> ====Why did Creative Commons choose to use the RDF format for its metadata?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons looked for the best way to express the intent behind the licenses in machine-readable form. We feel that our system provides the best of all possible worlds: RDF, XML, and even plain text-based tools can easily process our metadata files because we provide them with a structured format. But just as XML tools make it easier to process the information than text-based ones, RDF ones make it even easier -- so we encourage all of our developers to use RDF tools where possible. We're also working with the community to provide CC sample code, in many different languages, that shows how easy it is to take advantage of the RDF information. We're also open to providing converters from RDF to other formats. If you have such a tool or would like one, please send information about it to our metadata list.<br /> <br /> ====How can I use Creative Commons metadata in my program?====<br /> <br /> You can use it in a variety of ways. A painting, writing, or drawing program could let its users know about their rights granted by the licensor of the file. File sharing software could highlight files with Creative Commons licenses and encourage users to download them. In fact, we see peer-to-peer file sharing software as an excellent distribution mechanism for Creative Commons works, especially large music, picture, and movie files that the authors might not have the bandwidth or tools necessary to distribute themselves. Search systems could allow users the choice of only searching for files with licenses that permit certain uses (such as searching for pictures of cats that you can include in your non-commercial collage). There are many ways to take advantage of this information and we hope the developer community will surprise us by coming up with others!<br /> <br /> ====I'd prefer to use a PNG image instead of a GIF image or vice versa. What should I do?====<br /> <br /> We provide license buttons in both formats. Change, e.g., [http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gif somerights20.gif] to [http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png somerights20.png] or vice versa.<br /> <br /> ===Questions about using Creative Commons’ logo===<br /> <br /> ====Where can I get a high resolution version of the Creative Commons logos?====<br /> <br /> You can get high resolution versions of the Creative Commons logos and license buttons [http://creativecommons.org/presskit/ here]. Creative Commons only authorizes the use of our logos, name and license buttons in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies].<br /> <br /> ====I want to print out some t-shirts & stickers with Creative Commons logos; how do I go about doing this?====<br /> <br /> We’re glad you are excited about Creative Commons and want to spread the message. We only authorize use of our logo, name and license buttons in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies], ie. to linkback to the Creative Commons website, a Creative Commons license and/or otherwise describe a Creative Commons license that applies to a work.<br /> <br /> You can support Creative Commons and purchase t-shirts and stickers via our [http://creativecommons.org/support/store]. In addition, movies about Creative Commons are available for download [http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/ here].<br /> <br /> ====I want to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into my site or work, can I?====<br /> <br /> You are welcome to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into your site or work if you do so in accordance with our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies page]. Basically, we only authorize use of the Creative Commons corporate logo (that is the name Creative Commons and the “CC” in a circle) to link back to our website; and our “Some Rights Reserved” and “No Rights Reserved” buttons as well as our license element buttons (ie. the Attribution license button, the NonCommercial license button etc.) to be used to link back to our respective licenses.<br /> <br /> ====Can I change the Creative Commons logos so that they look better on my site or with my work?====<br /> <br /> Please don’t change our logo so that it works better with the look of your site or work. Our “Some Rights Reserved” and “No Rights Reserved” buttons need to be used consistently because they are our trademark and a core part of our licensing system. You can also use the license elements buttons that are in black and white to signal that your work or site is licensed under the relevant Creative Commons license; this is also explained at our [http://creativecommons.org/policies policies page].<br /> <br /> ===About Creative Commons===<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons against copyright?====<br /> <br /> Not at all. Our licenses help you retain your copyright and manage your copyright in a more flexible, open way. In fact, our licenses rely upon copyright for their enforcement. The justification for intellectual property protection (under U.S. law, at least) is the "promot[ion of] the progress of science and the useful arts." We want to promote science and the useful arts, too, and believe that helping creators or licensors fine-tune the exercise of their rights to suit their preferences helps do just that.<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content?====<br /> <br /> Absolutely not. We believe in the Net, not an information bank controlled by a single organization. We are building tools so that the semantic web can identify and sort licensed works in a distributed, decentralized manner. We are not in the business of collecting content, or building databases of content.<br /> <br /> Now, to give you an idea of the sorts of uses that can be made of our licenses and metadata, we've provided some examples on our site for [http://creativecommons.org/text/ text], [http://creativecommons.org/audio/ audio], [http://creativecommons.org/image/ images], [http://creativecommons.org/video/ video] and [http://creativecommons.org/education/ educational works]. It's by no means a comprehensive catalog of everything being done with Creative Commons licenses today, nor is it the beginnings of a database. They are simply illustrations of some works, in a variety of media, that have been Creative Commons licensed so far.<br /> <br /> ====Will works that use Creative Commons licenses be in the "public domain"?====<br /> <br /> No, because the licensor does not give up all rights to his or her work. The Creative Commons licenses are only copyright licenses that enable you to control how other people use your work. <br /> <br /> If you want to put your work in the public domain -- the realm of creative material unfettered by copyright law – you can use our [http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain Public Domain Dedication]. By dedicating your work to the public domain, you are effectively relinquishing all copyright interests you may otherwise have in the work. However, this waiver may not be valid outside of the US.<br /> <br /> ====What is Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Structurally, Creative Commons is a Massachusetts, US, US charitable corporation . Also working to promote the idea of Creative Commons are volunteer project leads in each of the jurisdictions to which Creative Commons licenses have been ported. Creative Commons International and the volunteer [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ project leads] are independent and separate entities although both work in collaboration to promote the adoption of Creative Commons licenses and tools. <br /> <br /> The idea underlying Creative Commons is that some people may not want to exercise all of the intellectual property rights the law affords them. We believe there is an unmet demand for an easy yet reliable way to tell the world “Some rights reserved” or even “No rights reserved.” Many people have long since concluded that all-out copyright doesn't help them gain the exposure and widespread distribution they want. Many entrepreneurs and artists have come to prefer relying on innovative business models rather than full-fledged copyright to secure a return on their creative investment. Still others get fulfillment from contributing to and participating in an intellectual commons. For whatever reasons, it is clear that many citizens of the Internet want to share their work -- and the power to reuse, modify, and distribute their work -- with others on generous terms. Creative Commons intends to help people express this preference for sharing by offering the world a set of licenses on our Website, at no charge.<br /> <br /> ====Who started Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Cyberlaw and intellectual property experts James Boyle, Michael Carroll, and Lawrence Lessig, MIT computer science professor Hal Abelson, lawyer-turned-documentary filmmaker-turned-cyberlaw expert Eric Saltzman, and public domain Web publisher Eric Eldred founded Creative Commons in 2001. Fellows and students at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School helped get the project off the ground and, for the first couple of years of its existence, Creative Commons was housed at and received generous support from Stanford Law School and the Center for Internet & Society. <br /> <br /> ====What problem does Creative Commons intend to solve?====<br /> <br /> With the advent of the digital revolution and the Internet, it is suddenly possible to distribute works in a variety of formats of a high, oftentimes professional quality; to work works collaboratively across boundaries of time and space; and to create new, derivative or collective works—on a global level, in a decentralised manner, and at comparatively low cost. <br /> <br /> This presents an opportunity for an enormous and unprecedented stimulation of creativity and production of knowledge. As more and more people are interconnected and communicating, it becomes easier to obtain exactly the content one needs or want and to complete tasks and solve problems by the cooperation this interconnection enables. The convergence of technologies and media also create multiple new possibilities for creating derivatives of existing works, eg. remixes and mashups. <br /> <br /> Another notable aspect is that globalisation is not only happening on the corporate level, its effects can also be observed in the areas of science and education and in other sectors of society where new models of fruitful cooperation have appeared. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia and the free and open source software community are examples of these sociological and economic phenomena. The activities of many contributors to projects in these areas are not motivated by the desire to gain (immediate) financial benefit but by the desire to learn, to get recognition, and also to help others. <br /> <br /> The downside of these exciting new developments and possibilities is that the new technologies are also being used to infringe copyright on a massive scale and that many consumers, in particular young people, have come to regard it as normal to disrespect the legal and legitimate claims of creators and producers of content to be paid for the use of their works. In turn, major right holders have reacted to this by a fourfold strategy: (a) by trying to prevent the deployment of technologies that can be put to infringing uses; (b) by developing tools that enable them to manage their rights with an amount of precision hitherto unknown and unthinkable: digital rights management and technological protection measures against unauthorised copying; (c) by successfully lobbying for support of these technological measures through legal restrictions; and, (d) by starting huge publicity campaigns designed to teach young people that they must keep their hands off copyrighted material - or else. <br /> <br /> These responses are understandable. Our concern is that their combined effect will be to stifle the opportunities for digital technologies to be used widely to encourage creativity and for the problem-solving and collaboration discussed above. If creators and licensors have to negotiate not only complicated legal rules, but also burdensome technical barriers, many will either ignore the rules or not create.<br /> <br /> Our alternative is to provide creators and licensors with a simple way to say what freedoms they want their creative work to carry. This in turn makes it easy to share, or build upon creative work. It makes it possible for creators and licensors to reserve some rights while releasing others. This, at its core, is our mission. Copyright gives authors certain rights. We want to make it simpler for authors to exercise those rights in ways others can understand. <br /> <br /> ====Does it cost me anything to use the Creative Commons licenses & tools?====<br /> <br /> Nope. They're free.<br /> <br /> ====Who funds Creative Commons?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons was founded with a generous donation from the Center for the Public Domain and receives ongoing support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network. We continue to seek donations from other sources, including foundations, individuals, and government grants. If you would like to support Creative Commons, feel free to do so at our [http://creativecommons.org/support/ support page].<br /> <br /> ====Whom does Creative Commons serve or represent?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons serves creators and users of creative works and the public interest that benefits from greater collaboration using creative materials. We help people who want to license their work on generous terms, people who want to make creative uses of those works, and people who benefit from this symbiosis. We hope that teachers, scholars, scientists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, musicians, graphic designers, Web hobbyists -- as well as listeners, readers, and viewers -- gain from the use of our tools.<br /> <br /> ====Where is Creative Commons based?====<br /> <br /> Creative Commons Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation that draws on the work of geographically distributed staff and volunteers. Our main offices are in San Francisco, US and London, United Kingdom.<br /> <br /> ====Does Creative Commons host or own any content?====<br /> <br /> Our primary mission is to help you license your work, offer you tools to more easily publish your works, and point to examples of CC-licensed content from our featured works. We also offer ways for users to find licensed works and easily understand their license terms. <br /> <br /> We do, however, also host content on its [http://ccmixter.org ccMixter site].<br /> <br /> ====Is Creative Commons involved in digital rights management (DRM)?====<br /> <br /> No. We are in the business of digital rights expression, not management. Our tools make it easy to say what rights an author is reserving. But we do not provide tools for enforcing the rights the author reserves. Digital rights management (or “DRM”) does. In addition to digitally expressing rights, a DRM system provides technology for enforcing those rights. <br /> <br /> Why don’t we use technology to enforce rights? There are too many reasons to describe here. Perhaps the most familiar is the fact that technology cannot protect freedoms such as “fair use.” Put differently, “fair use” can’t be coded. But more importantly, we believe, technological enforcement burdens unplanned creative reuse of creative work. We want to encourage such use. And we, along with many others, are concerned that the ecology for creativity will be stifled by the pervasive use of technology to “manage” rights. <br /> <br /> Copyrights should be respected, no doubt. But we prefer they be respected the old fashioned way — by people acting to respect the freedoms, and limits, chosen by the author and enforced by the law.<br /> <br /> ====What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?====<br /> <br /> If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from "distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."<br /> <br /> ====I love what Creative Commons does. How can I help?====<br /> <br /> We would be very grateful for your help. You are welcome to support Creative Commons Corporation by [http://creativecommons.org/support/ making a donation at our Support page]. In exchange for your donation, you'll receive a variety of items, depending on level. Donations and shipping addresses are handled by Paypal.<br /> <br /> You can also give us feedback directly at info@creativecommons.org. Alternately, you can participate in our [http://creativecommons.org/discuss email discussion lists].<br /> <br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Comments&diff=5130 ToT Comments 2007-01-03T00:54:45Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Legal Issues */</p> <hr /> <div>This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the *BETA* Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.<br /> <br /> ==Useability==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Functionality==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Text Issues==<br /> <br /> ==Legal Issues==<br /> So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?<br /> <br /> <br /> --Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Comments&diff=5129 ToT Comments 2007-01-03T00:54:28Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Legal Issues */</p> <hr /> <div>This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the *BETA* Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.<br /> <br /> ==Useability==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Functionality==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Text Issues==<br /> <br /> ==Legal Issues==<br /> So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Labs&diff=5114 Labs 2006-12-21T16:53:55Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Labs]]<br /> [[Category:Tools]]<br /> [[Category:Developer]]<br /> <br /> [http://labs.creativecommons.org CC Labs] is a new site hosting experimental web applications. CC founder and CEO Lawrence Lessig wrote a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7143 letter introducing the site].<br /> <br /> == Feedback ==<br /> <br /> Please leave comments, criticisms, and suggestions on [[Talk:Labs]]. Alternatively<br /> * Join and send an email to the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-devel] mailing list<br /> * Ask on [[IRC]]<br /> * Submit a [https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=80503 bug, request] or [[HOWTO_Patch|patch]]<br /> <br /> CC Labs experiments do not support Internet Explorer very well. Patches are most welcome.<br /> <br /> The comments page for the Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer [http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/ tool] is [[ToT_Comments|here]]. Hypos to assist you in testing the tool are [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ToT_Hypos here].<br /> <br /> == Experiments ==<br /> <br /> === Freedoms (Puzzle) License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/freedomslicense/<br /> <br /> === DHTML License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/dhtmllicense/<br /> <br /> === Metadata Lab ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/metadata/<br /> <br /> === Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool===<br /> <br /> http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Labs&diff=5113 Labs 2006-12-21T16:53:37Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Labs]]<br /> [[Category:Tools]]<br /> [[Category:Developer]]<br /> <br /> [http://labs.creativecommons.org CC Labs] is a new site hosting experimental web applications. CC founder and CEO Lawrence Lessig wrote a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7143 letter introducing the site].<br /> <br /> == Feedback ==<br /> <br /> Please leave comments, criticisms, and suggestions on [[Talk:Labs]]. Alternatively<br /> * Join and send an email to the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-devel] mailing list<br /> * Ask on [[IRC]]<br /> * Submit a [https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=80503 bug, request] or [[HOWTO_Patch|patch]]<br /> <br /> CC Labs experiments do not support Internet Explorer very well. Patches are most welcome.<br /> <br /> The comments page for the Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer [http://labt.creativecommons.org/termination/ tool] is [[ToT_Comments|here]]. Hypos to assist you in testing the tool are [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ToT_Hypos here].<br /> <br /> == Experiments ==<br /> <br /> === Freedoms (Puzzle) License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/freedomslicense/<br /> <br /> === DHTML License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/dhtmllicense/<br /> <br /> === Metadata Lab ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/metadata/<br /> <br /> === Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool===<br /> <br /> http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Labs&diff=5112 Labs 2006-12-21T16:52:26Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Labs]]<br /> [[Category:Tools]]<br /> [[Category:Developer]]<br /> <br /> [http://labs.creativecommons.org CC Labs] is a new site hosting experimental web applications. CC founder and CEO Lawrence Lessig wrote a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7143 letter introducing the site].<br /> <br /> == Feedback ==<br /> <br /> Please leave comments, criticisms, and suggestions on [[Talk:Labs]]. Alternatively<br /> * Join and send an email to the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-devel] mailing list<br /> * Ask on [[IRC]]<br /> * Submit a [https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=80503 bug, request] or [[HOWTO_Patch|patch]]<br /> <br /> CC Labs experiments do not support Internet Explorer very well. Patches are most welcome.<br /> <br /> The comments page for the Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool is [[ToT_Comments|here]]. Hypos to assist you in testing the tool are [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ToT_Hypos here].<br /> <br /> == Experiments ==<br /> <br /> === Freedoms (Puzzle) License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/freedomslicense/<br /> <br /> === DHTML License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/dhtmllicense/<br /> <br /> === Metadata Lab ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/metadata/<br /> <br /> === Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool===<br /> <br /> http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Labs&diff=5111 Labs 2006-12-21T16:48:11Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Labs]]<br /> [[Category:Tools]]<br /> [[Category:Developer]]<br /> <br /> [http://labs.creativecommons.org CC Labs] is a new site hosting experimental web applications. CC founder and CEO Lawrence Lessig wrote a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7143 letter introducing the site].<br /> <br /> == Feedback ==<br /> <br /> Please leave comments, criticisms, and suggestions on [[Talk:Labs]]. Alternatively<br /> * Join and send an email to the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-devel] mailing list<br /> * Ask on [[IRC]]<br /> * Submit a [https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=80503 bug, request] or [[HOWTO_Patch|patch]]<br /> <br /> CC Labs experiments do not support Internet Explorer very well. Patches are most welcome.<br /> <br /> The comments page for the Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool is here. Hypos to assist you in testing the tool are [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ToT_Hypos here].<br /> <br /> == Experiments ==<br /> <br /> === Freedoms (Puzzle) License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/freedomslicense/<br /> <br /> === DHTML License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/dhtmllicense/<br /> <br /> === Metadata Lab ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/metadata/<br /> <br /> === Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool===<br /> <br /> http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5110 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:46:09Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [http://labs.creativecommons.org/ CC Labs]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5109 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:45:31Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [http://labs.creativecommons.org/ |[CC Labs]]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5108 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:45:03Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [http://labs.creativecommons.org/ |ccLabs]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5107 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:44:36Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [http://labs.creativecommons.org/ | ccLabs]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5106 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:44:06Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[http://labs.creativecommons.org/| ccLabs]]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5105 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:43:37Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[http://labs.creativecommons.org/|CC Labs]]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5104 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:43:03Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[CC Labs| http://labs.creativecommons.org/]]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5103 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:42:03Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[CC Labs]]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5102 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:41:26Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on CC Labs [http://labs.creativecommons.org/]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5101 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:40:30Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [http://labs.creativecommons.org/]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5100 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:40:12Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [http://labs.creativecommons.org/|ccLabs]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5099 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:37:44Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[ccLabs]]. (http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5098 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:36:21Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''''BETA''''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[ccLabs]]. (http://labt.creativecommons.org/termination/)<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5097 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:35:42Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''BETA''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on [[ccLabs]]. ([http://labt.creativecommons.org/termination/])<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Hypos&diff=5096 ToT Hypos 2006-12-21T16:34:05Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains hypotheticals that assist you in testing the '''BETA''' Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool available on ccLabs.<br /> <br /> When you are completing the tool using the hypo, feel free to make up the details of your name, that of your family members, the title of your work and its copyright registration number. The other details you need to test out different results in the tool should be included in the hypos but if you feel they are not, feel free to make them up as well to explore the tool’s different results and functions.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 1:''''' You are an author who wrote a book in 1965. You wrote it on your own time and dime, definitely not as part of your employment or at anyone else’s suggestion, commissioning or order. In 1980, you were thrilled to get a publication deal so you signed an exclusive publishing agreement with BigBook Co. which gave them the right to publish and distribute your book for the term of copyright (your life plus 70 years). They published it in the same year you signed the agreement, in 1980. Now it’s the year 2007. The book has sold well but your royalty check each quarter is pretty small. You want a better deal and want to see if you might be able to terminate the publishing deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 2:''''' You are a graphic designer and have created countless pieces of artwork. For one project in 1984, a company approached you and commissioned you to create some pictures and graphic work for inclusion in a textbook and other professional instructional reference books. You agree and enter into a written contract with them that you both sign. One term of the contract requires you to agree that the graphics you are creating is a “work for hire.” Now in 2007 you realize that you could reuse those graphics for other projects that you work on from time to time and wonder if you can get the rights back.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 3:''''' Your father was a filmmaker and created a film in 1923 all by himself, on his own time and without any backing or direction by anyone else. In 1925, he entered into a distribution licensing agreement with MajorMovieCo that gave them the worldwide rights to distribute and license the movie for theatre performances for 90 years. They released it to the public in 1927. Both your father and your mother died in 1963 and 1965, respectively. You now wonder if it is possible to get back the rights to the movie and see if you can negotiate a better deal.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 4:''''' You occasionally draw cartoons in your spare time and drew a great series in 1992. You happened to show them to a video game company. The video game company was excited by your talent and asked you to enter into an exclusive 50-year license for them to be able to use your cartoons however they want. You agreed in exchange for a lump sum payment and the hope that they would do something cool and big with your drawings and get your name out there. You signed the deal in 1996. But they only released a small number of games using the cartoon in 2005 and the impact has been minimal. You are frustrated because you have now met a lot of other people who would have been interested in utilizing your work in a bigger market now. You want to see if you can terminate the exclusive license now in 2007.<br /> <br /> '''''Hypo 5:''''' Your wife was songwriter and performer. She did odd jobs to support her music but always created her music for herself, by herself; never as an employee or for commission. She met Mr. Record Producer who was awed by her talent and together they agreed that she would record some of her songs on an album and he would assist her technically in recording it. The album was recorded and released in 1948 and your wife and the record producer entered into a recording deal under which she agreed to assign the copyright in all of the songs on the album to the record producer. Consistent with then US copyright law, Mr. Record Producer asked you to sign, also in 1948, an assignment of any future interest you may obtain to the copyright in the album in the event something were to happen to your wife. Unfortunately, something did happen and she passed away in 1949. This meant that under then current US copyright law, your assignment to Mr. Record Producer became effective. You and your wife have two children, one of whom also unfortunately passed away in 1964, leaving behind one child (your grandchild). Now in 2007 Mr. Record Producer continues to exploit the album but you wonder if there is a way for you to be able to regain control of the rights you assigned away in 1948 under your agreement with Mr. Record Producer.</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Comments&diff=5095 ToT Comments 2006-12-21T16:31:10Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Text Issues= */</p> <hr /> <div>This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the *BETA* Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/.<br /> <br /> ==Useability==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Functionality==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Text Issues==<br /> <br /> ==Legal Issues==</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ToT_Comments&diff=5094 ToT Comments 2006-12-21T16:30:52Z

<p>Miakgarlick: </p> <hr /> <div>This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the *BETA* Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/.<br /> <br /> ==Useability==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Functionality==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Text Issues===<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Legal Issues==</div>

Miakgarlick https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Labs&diff=5093 Labs 2006-12-21T16:26:48Z

<p>Miakgarlick: /* Metadata Lab */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Labs]]<br /> [[Category:Tools]]<br /> [[Category:Developer]]<br /> <br /> [http://labs.creativecommons.org CC Labs] is a new site hosting experimental web applications. CC founder and CEO Lawrence Lessig wrote a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7143 letter introducing the site].<br /> <br /> == Feedback ==<br /> <br /> Please leave comments, criticisms, and suggestions on [[Talk:Labs]]. Alternatively<br /> * Join and send an email to the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-devel] mailing list<br /> * Ask on [[IRC]]<br /> * Submit a [https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=80503 bug, request] or [[HOWTO_Patch|patch]]<br /> <br /> CC Labs experiments do not support Internet Explorer very well. Patches are most welcome.<br /> <br /> The comments page for the Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool is here. Hypos to assist you in testing the tool are here.<br /> <br /> == Experiments ==<br /> <br /> === Freedoms (Puzzle) License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/freedomslicense/<br /> <br /> === DHTML License Chooser ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/dhtmllicense/<br /> <br /> === Metadata Lab ===<br /> <br /> http://labs.creativecommons.org/metadata/<br /> <br /> === Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool===<br /> <br /> http://lab.creativecommons.org/termination/</div>

Miakgarlick