Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Slovenia

2012-04-17T10:51:19Z

TamarPettey:

{{Jurisdiction
|jurstatus=Active
|status=2.5
|country code=si
|homepage=http://creativecommons.si/
|logourl=http://www.culture.si/en/images/5/5d/Creative_Commons_Slovenia_%28logo%29.jpg
|mailing list=http://mail.ljudmila.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/icommons-si
|otherurl=icommons-si@mail.ljudmila.org
|mailing=Come by and visit us at Ljudmila, Rimska 8 in the very centre of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
|region=Europe
|affiliated=Ljudmila Art and Science Laboratory
|affurl=http://www.culture.si/en/Ljudmila_Art_and_Science_Laboratory
|afffocus=Public Lead
|afftype=NGO
|plead1=Luka Frelih
|pemail1=info@ljudmila.org
|ptitle1=Public Lead
|plead2=Alenka Pirman
|pemail2=info@ljudmila.org
|ptitle2=Public Lead
|plead3=Živa Zupan
|pemail3=info@ljudmila.org
|ptitle3=Coordinator
|plead4=Dare Pejić
|pemail4=info@ljudmila.org
|ptitle4=Researcher
|plead5=Marko Brumen
|pemail5=info@ljudmila.org
|ptitle5=Public Relations Consultant
|teamsize=7
|flagurl=http://creativecommons.org/images/international/si.png
}}
=Programme & Projects (roadmap) / DRAFT=

* Date submitted: 15 June, 2011
* Timespan of this roadmap: 2011-2012

=CC Slovenia Team=

'''Legal Project Lead:''' [mailto:jernej.pusser@ipi.si Jernej Pusser], [http://www.intellectualpropertyinstitute.si/ Intellectual Property Institute].

Counsel to Legal Lead: [mailto:maja@intellectualpropertyinstitute.si Maja Bogataj Jančič], [http://www.intellectualpropertyinstitute.si/ Intellectual Property Institute].

'''Public Project Lead:''' Alenka Pirman, Luka Frelih, Živa Zupan (coordinator), Dare Pejić (researcher), Marko Brumen (PR consultant), Špela Kučan and Mitja Doma (senior consultants) [http://www.culture.si/en/Ljudmila_Art_and_Science_Laboratory Ljudmila Art and Science Laboratory (LJUDMILA)].

Date of earliest MOU in jurisdiction: October 2005

Self-Identified Region: Europe (member of EU since 1 May 2004)

=Focus=
Apart from the regular work, defined by the Memorandum of Understanding, CC Slovenia will focus on three major tasks:

==Argumentative Tools (Individual Approach)==
The usage of the CC licences in Slovenia has been increasing (especially in the fields of non-profit media and on-line publishing, nevertheless, the basic issue remains the author's incapability to reject the unfavourable conditions, dictated by the industry (all rights reserved) and to be able to negotiate for a better deal. In 2011-2012 we intend to focus on providing argumentative tools for them in the form of an on-line and printed manual.

===Outputs===
* MANUAL: on-line, printed, flowcharts
* PUBLIC DEBATE: with topical guest speakers
* MEDIA PRESENTATIONS: contact shows on national and alternative radio stations, articles in the printed media
* BOOKI TOOL: an international team of FLOSS Manuals developers will adjust the BOOKI tool for collective book writing to suit the needs of various international community groups. The licensing options will be expanded (to all CC licences) and the tool will be promoted by BOOKI SPRINTS (collective writing events). Ljubljana will become a hub for this development as well as one of the promotors of this free culture tool.

==Free Archives (Institutional Approach)==
Apart from the individual authors the need to rethink the copyright policies is experienced by the public institutions such as archives, libraries, and museums. Through close collaboration with the Ministry of Culture, the National University Library (and according to the Europeana standards), and in collaboration with Maribor, European Capital of Culture 2012 we have been addressing these institutions, introducing them to the alternative licensing possibilities and developing a case of good practice - an independent bank of free images on a national level which will reach some 3000 objects by the end of 2012 (a conservative guess).

===Outputs===
*CULTURE.SI PORTAL: development and building of the Free Image Bank section
*LETTERS TO DIRECTORS: an intense correspondence is taking place with the goal of individually contacting all Slovene cultural and heritage institutions, organisations, foundations, and agencies by the end of 2012 in order to introduce CC as the alternative licensing opportunity.
*PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: targeted presentations of the benefits of such tools and freely available archives to focused groups (foreign governmental cultural centres, embassies, media, producers, researchers ...)

==Free Cultural Policies==
In collaboration with the Ministry of Culture we are preparing a case of good practice for the on-line publishing and promotion of culture on the national, regional and international levels. The software, tools and portals that LJUDMILA has been developing was presented at the ASEF meeting in Singapore (2010). The basic goal is to encourage the governments to share and complement the free content as well as to secure the interoperability of their agents, also with the help of CC licences. The team also actively participates in the public debates on the related issues (e-content and e-services in culture, re-use of public sector information etc) in close collaboration with the Sector for Analyses, Strategies and Cultural System, Ministry of Culture.

===Outputs===
*PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS and PARTICIPATION in PUBLIC DEBATES
*NETWORKING: establishing an international network of partners in order to further develop the tools for national, regional and artistic disciplines' agencies with the embedded CC philosophy
*MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENTS: media coverage of the above

=Sustainability and funding=
LJUDMILA funds the material costs of its CC-related activities through the scarce basic programme funding (two principal funders being Municipality of Ljubljana and Ministry of Culture), through the national Multimedia Centres Network and partly also through the earned income. Most of the expert work, however, is on the voluntary basis. Through the international networking we plan to apply for additional funds in 2012/13.

=Partners in 2011-2012=
National
* [http://www.culture.si/en/Ministry_of_Culture Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia]
** [http://www.culture.si/en/Sector_for_Analyses,_Strategies_and_Cultural_System,_Ministry_of_Culture, Centre for Cultural Policy Research Sector for Analyses, Strategies and Cultural System, Ministry of Culture]
* [http://www.culture.si/en/NUK National University Library]
* [http://www.maribor2012.info/en/ Maribor, European Capital of Culture 2012]
* [http://www.culture.si/en/Research_Institute_of_the_Academy_of_Fine_Arts_and_Design Research Institute of the Academy of Fine Arts and Design]
* [http://www.culture.si/en/SCCA-Ljubljana_Centre_for_Contemporary_Arts SCCA-Ljubljana Centre for Contemporary Arts]
International
* [http://www.iam.pl/en/events.html?id=159 East European Performing Arts Platform] (launch in Krakow, October 2011)
* [http://www.flossmanuals.net/index.php?plugin=blog FLOSS Manuals]
** [http://www.booki.cc/ BOOKI Project]

----

=More about Intellectual Property Institute=

The Intellectual Property Institute (IPI) is a research, academic and training institution in the field of intellectual property law. It was founded in 2004 and is the first institution of its kind in Slovenia. The Institute conducts research, provides education and offers training opportunities in the field of intellectual property law. The primary focus of its activities is to explore the challenges that digitalisation has brought to intellectual property law and are important for the progress of an information-based society. The Institute aims to work in close cooperation with Slovenian universities, research institutions, industry, art centres and civil society groups. Its aim is to create a strong network of partnership with researchers and research institutions at home and abroad. Since its recent founding, the Institute has participated in many discussions regarding various intellectual property issues, and managed to mark the landscape of the debate with its perspective.

For more information visit [http://www.intellectualpropertyinstitute.si Intellectual Property Institute] or contact [mailto:maja@intellectualpropertyinsitute.si Maja Bogataj Jančič]

=More about LJUDMILA=

Ljudmila Art and Science Laboratory was established in 2010 by 10 new & all media artists, developers, hackers, programmers, and computer engineers, previously engaged in the Ljudmila - Ljubljana Digital Media Lab, a programme of KUD France Prešeren Arts and Culture Association.

LJUDMILA is a successor of the media lab established in 1994 and has extensive experience connecting new media technologies and artistic projects as well as encouraging broader, savvier and more creative uses of new technologies. Ljudmila is devoted to [http://www.planetsofts.com free software], open source programming and promotes free culture.

Initially funded by the OSI-Slovenia Internet program, LJUDMILA has grown into a well-equipped digital media lab that focuses on digital production as well as education, research and development of open standards software. It also provides knowledge, equipment, Internet access, web sites, electronic publishing and other affordable networking services to non-governmental and non-profit organizations, art collectives, active individuals, and others.

For more information visit [http://www.ljudmila.org/ LJUDMILA's website] or contact [mailto:info@ljudmila.org Živa Zupan].

Mailing Lists

2012-04-17T10:46:37Z

TamarPettey:

This page is about software [[Developers|developer]] mailing lists. Creative Commons has many other lists for license development, community, and various jurisdiction and regional interests. See http://creativecommons.org/discuss for a full list.

== cc-devel ==
The primary developer mailing list is hosted at iBiblio. See the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-devel mailing list] page for information on subscribing and list archives.

== cc-metadata ==
For non-code discussion of metadata, see [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata cc-metadata]

== Additional Lists ==
Additional lists are hosted at Sourceforge.net and Berlios.de

* [http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/cctools-cvs cctools-cvs] Medium traffic list (bursts to high traffic during periods of heavy development) which receives commit messages from the Sourceforge.net CC Tools CVS Repository.
* [http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/cctools-cchost cctools-cchost] Discussion of the development and use of ccHost, the [http://www.planetsofts.com software] behind [[CcMixter]].
* [http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/cctools-announce cctools-announce] Low traffic list used for announcing new software and tools.
* [https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/cctools-svn cctools-svn] Medium traffic list (bursts to high traffic during periods of heavy development) which receives commit messages from the Berlios.de CC Tools Subversion Repository.
* [http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/cctools-i18n cctools-i18n] Low traffic list for announcements and discussion regarding translation of CC tools.

[[Category:Developer]]

Metadata

2012-04-17T10:44:21Z

TamarPettey:

When you select a license from the [http://creativecommons.org/license Creative Commons License Chooser], you're provided with HTML to place in your page. That HTML contains [[ccREL|metadata]] which allows [http://www.planetsofts.com software] to understand that you've applied a license to your work.

== What is metadata? ==

'''Metadata''' is data about data. For example: title, creator, and licensing information. When you [http://creativecommons.org/license/ choose a license] on our website, you get back some metadata (licensing information) encoded in RDF.

== What is RDF? ==

'''RDF''' (Resource Description Framework) is a framework for metadata. The basic structure of RDF is very simple. There are three parts:

* the subject: a thing, identified by its URL
* the predicate: the type of metadata (like title or creator), also identified by a URL
* the object: the value of this type of metadata (like "The Story of My Life" or 'a person named "John Q. Public"')

Together, these make RDF statements, which are expressed in a language called RDF/XML.

== What is the Semantic Web? ==

The '''Semantic Web''' is the part of the Web available in RDF. The idea behind the concept of the Semantic Web is that when enough pages carry this machine-processable metadata, developers can build tools that take advantage of it.

Among other things, RDF helps different programs talk to each other, reducing the need for users to copy information by hand. Imagine a world where everything had embedded RDF: When buying a plane ticket, for example, you could drag your flight itinerary onto your calendar program to add it to your calendar. You could drag a friend's top-ten songs list onto your music player, and it could try and obtain the songs for you automatically.

RDF can also be used to create more powerful search engines. Right now the only type of question you can ask a search engine is "What pages have these words in them?" When pages include RDF metadata, you will be able to ask more advanced questions like "What's the current temperature in California?" Programs can also use this information, like an alarm clock program that also displayed the current weather or a collage-making program that only used photos with permission.

Finally, metadata can be aggregated across the whole Web. A program could download all the top-ten song lists and, with the help of a pricing guide in RDF, calculate the cost of buying the most popular albums.

Metadata holds a lot of promise, but it won't be useful until people start adding it to their pages. Creative Commons hopes to help promote metadata by making it very easy for people to add metadata to their pages.

== Why we have Creative Commons Metadata ==

In addition to making it easy for people to find the copyright licenses best for them, Creative Commons is working to provide simple RDF descriptions of these licenses. These descriptions will put the important points of the license in a way that makes it easy for machines to process and work from. Unlike Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, which tries to restrict use of digital works, Creative Commons is providing ways to encourage permitted sharing and reuse of works.

If you run a search engine, you might use license metadata to highlight public domain and generously-licensed works. If you write a public file sharing server, you might offer to search the user's hard drive for works that allow distribution. If you write a magazine, you might use a CC-enabled search engine to find pictures of candy bars that you can legally include.

By standardizing a way to describe this information and providing large quantities of RDF to build on, we hope to encourage new and innovative ways to develop the commons. Of course, this metadata only provides a first approximation of the license, for information use. Users are encouraged to read the full license to make sure it meets their expectations.

== CC REL Describes Creative Commons Metadata ==

Creative Commons metadata is described by the [[ccREL|Creative Commons Rights Expression Language]] (CC REL). You can also find information on specific [[:Category:Filetype|filetypes]] for embedding and reading metadata.

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:Metadados,Ru:Метаданные
}}

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Developer]]
[[Category:Metadata]]
[[Category:Guide]]

Version 3

2012-04-17T10:41:27Z

TamarPettey:

= Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =

===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===

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 as an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the public 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).

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.

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 is 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.

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.

==Background to Version 3.0==

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.

===''Debian''===

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 “[http://www.planetsofts.com free software]” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.

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.

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:

“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.'')

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.'')

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.

====DRM====

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 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://evan.prodromou.name/ccsummary/ccsummary.html]) 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.

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.

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.

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 ].

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.

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.

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.

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/003857.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal.

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.

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.

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].)

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.

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.

===''MIT''===

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.

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.

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 its 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.

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.

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

==Further Internationalization==

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/international/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world.

Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 45 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.'')

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.

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 International 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?

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.

The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of 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.

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.

The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 45-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.

===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===

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.

Moral rights, to describe 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_rights]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection.

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://www.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==

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).

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:

"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."

This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and [http://hotels-ferienhaus.blogage.de 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]).

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.

Consequently, CC has been working to ensure that, to again quote Lessig:

"[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."

There are several obvious candidates for compatibility with the [http://lifestyle.blogpaint.com 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].

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.

Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the [http://hamburgnagelstudio.wordpress.com 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]).

==Summary of Links==

The following list provides the CC blog posts that relate to Version 3.0:

* Getting to Version 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908]
* Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017]
* Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120]
* Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]
* Version 3.0 — Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249]
* [[Versioning to 3.0]] - Legal Leads versioning to 3.0. Includes checklist, working document, sui generis database rights document, and CS document

[[Category:Project]]