Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

File:CC0v1 pubcom JP.pdf

2013-11-05T05:43:37Z

Tomo: Tomo uploaded a new version of "File:CC0v1 pubcom JP.pdf": 微修正版（消し損ねていたコメント・履歴などを除去）

CC0 日本語版パブリックコメント用訳稿。コモンズ証部分を含む。

File:CC0v1 pubcom ENJP.pdf

2013-11-05T05:42:24Z

Tomo: Tomo uploaded a new version of "File:CC0v1 pubcom ENJP.pdf": 微訂正版（消し損ねていたコメント・履歴などを除去）

CC0 日本語版パブリックコメント用訳稿。日英対訳版。コモンズ証部分を含む。

File:CC0v1 pubcom ENJP.pdf

2013-11-04T04:02:25Z

Tomo: CC0 日本語版パブリックコメント用訳稿。日英対訳版。コモンズ証部分を含む。

CC0 日本語版パブリックコメント用訳稿。日英対訳版。コモンズ証部分を含む。

File:CC0v1 pubcom JP.pdf

2013-11-04T03:59:15Z

Tomo: CC0 日本語版パブリックコメント用訳稿。コモンズ証部分を含む。

CC0 日本語版パブリックコメント用訳稿。コモンズ証部分を含む。

Legal Tools Translation/CC0/Japanese

2013-07-29T18:26:57Z

Tomo: Created page with "{{CC0 Translation |jurisdictions=Japan |coordinationplan=No. |date=2013/07/03 |draftdate=2013/08/03 |publicdate=2013/08/05 |publicenddate=2013/09/05 |end_date=2013/09/20 |proc..."

{{CC0 Translation
|jurisdictions=Japan
|coordinationplan=No.
|date=2013/07/03
|draftdate=2013/08/03
|publicdate=2013/08/05
|publicenddate=2013/09/05
|end_date=2013/09/20
|process=Phase 1: A solicitor with copyright specialization translated the draft, followed by rounds of reviews and revisions by 4 people, including two lawyers.
Phase 2: An intensive review session was held by 6 people, including 2 lawyers. (Three of them, including a lawyer were also involved in the phase).
Phase 3: A round of reviews and revisions was done by three people, including 1 lawyer. (The other two were involved in both Phase 1& 2).

|team=All those involved are Creative Commons Japan members.
|wordchoice=All the decisions and choices were shared via email (from Tomo) with the CCHQ's legal team.
|affirm=Yes
|status=Proposed
}}

4.0/Attribution and marking

2012-08-07T09:32:51Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */ in the manner designated by Licensor v. in any reasonable manner

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' This page aggregates discussion topics involving attribution and marking requirements, as the two are closely related and have never been clearly or uniformly differentiated. Attribution has been a standard feature of all CC licenses since the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 version 2.0 suite]. Currently, attribution requirements are primarily contained in Section 4 of the 3.0 licenses. Marking requirements are interspersed throughout the license, including (in version 3.0) in Section 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the licenses permitting adaptations, and in Section 4(a) of the two ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND).
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' In light of our goal to make CC licenses simpler and more user-friendly, we have considerably revamped the manner in which the attribution and marking requirements are conveyed in the license. Most importantly, we have consolidated all of the attribution and marking requirements into one section of the license, outlined them in list form and have labeled that section accordingly. To increase license compliance, we have provided that all attribution requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner depending on the means and medium used. Last, we have added a shortcut, which allows licensees to include the URI associated with the licensed work (or a hyperlink) to satisfy several of the attribution requirements. We look forward to your input on these changes and others, including other suggestions for adjusting this provision to facilitate large collaborations such as Wikipedia. Our goal is to best ensure a proper balance between the author’s attribution rights and the need for flexibility given that any license violation results in automatic termination (at least as currently drafted). See also the discussion regarding relaxing the [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|termination provision]].

Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_attribution_in_4.0|attribution]] and [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_marking_requirements_in_4.0|marking]] proposal below. }}

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' We continue our effort to make attribution and marking easy for licensees without undue burden (thus promoting greater compliance), while at the same time respecting the desire of licensors to have relevant information they provide included when the work is further shared. We have retained nearly all of the requirements from the first draft with a few variations intended for clarity and ease of application.

See this attribution and marking [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/5/5f/Attribution_comparision_(4-1.0d2_final_for_31_July).pdf comparison chart] to easily view differences between 3.0, 4.0d1 and 4.0d2.

One change is that the URI requirement is now simpler. The licensee must provide the URI or hyperlink to the source where the work can be accessed. Another change relates to the requirement to retain notices of disclaimers or warranties supplied by licensor. The difference in draft 2 is that licensees must retain any such notices when supplied by the licensor, rather than only those referring to the CC license. This change also supports a corresponding addition found in Section 6(b), which allows licensors to supplement the license to disclaim warranties or limit liabilities differently than the license does in Section 4, or to offer warranties. We have also expanded the URI shortcut, so that licensees may satisfy some or all of the requirements by linking to a particular webpage containing some or all of the necessary information.

We have eliminated the requirement to provide the title of the work and retain copyright notices, though ideally licensees will provide both when supplied by the licensor. In this spirit, we specifically encourage their retention by explicitly permitting licensees to use those notices to comply with any or all attribution requirements when they contain any or all of the required information. We hope this encourages licensors to consolidate attribution and marking information in a central location. Finally, in order to support many communities who have well-accepted practices for how attribution is given (e.g., in scientific and scholarly communities), we now make clear that attribution and marking requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the means, medium and context (the term “context” being new) in which the work is shared.

Finally, we recognize that these revisions may ease the problem of attribution stacking, but that the stacking problem and the challenges associated with attribution in the context of text-mining persist. We will be looking at these two problems more concertedly in the d2 discussion period.
|}

== Attribution ==

The current 3.0 licenses require users of a work to implement the following in any reasonable manner: <ref> See the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users#Marking_on_Your_Site Marking Page] for further information.</ref>

* keep copyright notices intact; and
* reasonable to the medium or means used by the licensee,
** provide the name the original author (or her pseudonym, or other attribution party, when provided);
** provide the title of the work if supplied;
** include the URI associated with the work (if it refers to the copyright notice or licensing information); and
** where an adaptation is created (when permitted by the license), include a credit stating that the work has been used in the adaptation <ref>Per Section 4(b) of the license, in the case of an adaptation or collection, where a credit for all contributing authors appears, the credit required must be at least as prominent as the credits for other contributing authors.</ref>

All 3.0 licenses allow licensors to request removal of the credit when their works are reproduced in a collection, as well as when their works are adapted (where permitted by the licenses). Specifically, all six version 3.0 licenses provide: <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses. </ref>

:: ''If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.''

:: And in BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA, and BY-NC, additionally:

:: ''If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.'' <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>

The attribution requirement is reflected on the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC deeds] as:

:: ''Attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).''

A few [[Case_Law|legal decisions]] have successfully enforced the attribution requirement.

The attribution requirements have drawn some criticism:
# General difficulty understanding what is required on the part of licensees, in part due to the “reasonable to the medium or means” language but also because the language is difficult to parse.
# Are too onerous and do not align with community practices.
# The requirements insufficiently anticipate or account for analog distributions and performances, making it challenging to comply (same criticism is equally applicable to other marking requirements, below).
# Absence of a mechanism for requesting or permitting removal of a credit for reproductions of an unmodified work when not reproduced as part of a collection.<ref>Although, a licensor may always enter into a separate agreement with licensees to have attribution waived.</ref>

'''Note: For criticisms, issues and proposals relating to attribution requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

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

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''BY Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Consolidate the attribution requirements into a single location within the licenses (e.g., Section 4) and simplify language, including all other marking requirements (see below), such as providing the URI for the license.'''
* Pros: Users of licensed works would understand requirements more easily, which fosters reuse.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Consolidated, reorganized and simplified for greater understandability and to facilitate compliance.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Introduce further flexibility into the requirements, to bring them closer into alignment with community practices.'''
* Pros: This would reduce unintentional violations of the licenses, which is especially important because a violation of the license results in automatic termination.
* Cons:
* Other comments: For example, one [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006604.html proposal] from license-discuss is to remove the provision requiring that a credit for an adaptation or collection must be as prominent as the other contributing authors. This requirement might be excessive in some circumstances.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' To increase license compliance, attempted to introduce more flexibility by providing that all requirements may be implemented in a reasonable manner.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand the existing mechanism for requesting removal of the attribution credit so licensors can request removal for any reuse.'''
* Pros: There may be situations where licensors would prefer not to be associated with a particular website, and this would enable them to avoid association by removing attribution credit.
* Cons: Allows people to require removal of author's name even where credit is accurate and factual.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change. Note that this revision may also have relevance where the moral right of withdrawal exists, arguably giving the licensor a functional equivalent when using a perpetual, irrevocable public license.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Create a mechanism in the license allowing licensors to waive attribution completely.'''
* Pros: Potentially useful for keeping alive CC BY-SA but waiving BY aspect without needing a separate and incompatible copyleft (CC SA, which existed and has been deprecated for some time)
* Cons: Reduces need for and potential adoption of CC0.
* Other comments: Couldn't a licensor waive attribution requirements outside of the license with an additional statement and without needing to add anything to the legalcode?
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in this draft, although draft does permit licensors to seek removal of attribution elements for any reuse, including reuse in unmodified form. May be possible to address as technical solution rather than within legal code.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Relax the requirement to "keep intact" copyright notice, notice referring to the license, and notice referring to disclaimers of warranty; and allow translation, contextualization, and possibly other modification of those notices.'''
* Pros: Reduces the risk for users to overlook copyright notice, notice referring to the license, or notice referring to disclaimers of warranty. This risk is higher in at least 2 situations: 1) When those notices are written in languages that a user do not understand well; and 2) When the work under a CC license is long or complex. For example, a notice referring to disclaimers of warranty might not be easily detectable in a given photo gallery web site with multiple pages with many different sections. (And you are required to keep intact "all" such notices.)
** Allowing contextualization of the notices would reduce the risk of bearing non-sensical or even ineffective notices. For example, if you use a text from web page to create a book, to "keep intact" a notice saying "content of this web page is under CC-BY 3.0 Unported" does not make good sense for readers of a book. (And in practice, many license notices are written in this kind of context-specific way.)
** In some cases, to "keep intact" a notice is impossible. For example, a notice may be given as an audio, as a part of radio program. A user cannot "keep intact" the audio notice if he wants to use the content of the audio for a photo or a book. More importantly, notice seems to be given visually in many cases, by using a CC license logo. To keep intact a logo may be challenge if a user wants to create a non-visual work, or use the work in an environment where only text-data is usable.
** In theory, this requirement to keep intact "all" notices could be used to intentionally block further reuse even when license and technology would allow reuse. Imagine a user of a licensed CC-BY-SA work adds a few hundred notices to an Adaptation. Those who wishes to use such work would find it very difficult to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" such notices. Allowing more flexible attribution and marking would prevent such effort. Another theoretical example would be to embed notices in easy-to-overlook places within a movie, a video game, or a long book. A user may need to first find all the notices to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" notices.
** Note also that reuse (creation of adaptations/ derivatives) under BY-SA licenses would end up accumulating license notices. "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic" may appear "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 US." That would look like the work is dual-licensed, while it is not. It is simply that an original work was under 2.0, and a derivative is under 3.0.
** As far as I can tell, in practice, very few people comply with (or even understand) this requirement, so relaxing it would have the effect of bringing the license into alignment with common usage. If common usage has been ignorning, at least to some extent, this requirement for the past 5 or 6 years, then that is probably a pretty good argument against the con that unwanted exploitation might arise, as I'm not aware of any court battles over this point.
* Cons: Like many relaxation of requirements, it could serve as an opening for unwanted exploitation.
* Other comments: I think there is some room for interpretation what exactly is to "keep intact."
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated some changes in the spirit of this proposal. See the 3.0/4.0 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated some changes in this spirit by suggesting keeping intact existing copyright notices as a a way to comply with the other attribution requirements. See the d1/d2 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.

'''''BY Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Make clearer what is meant by "credit" by stopping the use of the word in two different ways.''' - "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation" is one place where the word appears, and "remove ... any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested" is another place where the same word is used but to mean a wider set of information.
* Pros: Increase the ease of complying the license terms, and reduce unintended failure to comply with the requirements.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by avoiding use of the term ''credit'' in this draft.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Explicitly allow attribution via a provision of a URI, when a web page with that URI provides attribution'''
* Pros: This would solve the problem sometimes referred to as attribution stack-up - when there are too many authors to attribute to, that would restrict the scope of reuse. Allowing the use of a web page to provide attribution, and requiring just a display of its URL for attribution would make reuse possible in those cases. A typical example - copying some text from Wikipedia's heavily edited article to a blog. If you need to copy the whole list of the authors, it could be difficult and time-consuming. If you could simply show a URL of the page on Wikipedia where you can see a list of people edited the page, that would be a lot easier and quicker.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, but we have retained requirement that the licensee must provide the URI only if it references copyright notice or licensing information. Further input needed, including suggestions for other alternative means for allowing attribution.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Consider giving the right to request credit removal to actual people receiving credits.''' - The current license allows only licensor to make such a request. Note that a CC licensed work may not carry information about licensor's name or contact at all. Credits may tell licensee about authors and other entities the credits are given to. When a CC-BY-SA work is adapted a few times by a few different parties, a licensee may not be able to tell who the licensors are.
* Pros: When removal request has to come from a licensor, there are two consequences: 1) A licensee cannot tell a removal request coming from authentic licensor from fake one, and 2) authors and other entities receiving credits may or may not necessarily know how to contact a licensor when they want to request a removal.
* Cons: A complication could still arise if this proposal is implemented because authentification of authors and other entities receiving credits are not easy, either. It is perhaps easier than telling who is a licensor for a given set of credit.
* Other comments: In general, it is not easy to understand the distinction between an author and a licensor.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not included. Granting rights to third parties who are not a party to the license presents challenges on multiple levels.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Consider limiting the "keep intact" and other crediting & marking obligations to only those pieces of information that are clearly present and easily identifiable. Make a licensee's failure to comply with properly crediting not a trigger for terminating the license.''' - For example, it is often difficult to tell if a URI accompanying a work is "specified" by the licensor. The same can be said even about the name of an author, when there are more than one name displayed for the same account. Flickr accounts may have an account name and a name of a person. It may be difficult to tell if a file name is meant to be a title for a photo or the photo is untitled. Many blog posts are accompanied by poster's account names, separate from their full names (typically linked from those nick names), which is different from name of the organization (typically found at the copyright notice) the blog is for. Which name is "supplied" as the name of the Original Author in this case?
* Pros: Increased ease of use of licensed works.
* Cons: In theory, unwanted crediting, or omission thereof may increase.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by specifying that only information supplied (such as name and title) must be provided and subjecting all requirements to reasonableness standard. See also discussion regarding [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|Relaxation of Termination Provision]].
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Further modified to no longer require title.

'''''BY Proposal No.10:''''' '''Consider increasing machine-readability of credits and marks.'''
* Pros: If a simple script can identify all or most of the information needed for giving a credit, it would improve license compliance for a wider range of works and licensees.
* Cons: If done in legalcode(?) this could result in massive incompliance with licenses, as machine-readability is hard to get right
* Other comments: It seems like this should be done regardless, but in external tooling work by the tech team and the rest of the CC-using ecosystem?
** It's not clear what this proposal means to say. For example, the HTML provided by the CC license chooser does contain attribution metadata, as long as the copyright holder provided that information when the filled out the chooser form. As far as downstream reuse, this proposal would imply that reusers would need to likely manually enter that metadata, which isn't going to happen. At the moment, the main way in which this attribution metadata is revealed to reusers is if they follow the license mark to the license deed, in which case attribution HTML will be provided on the deed, which itself contains metadata. However, not everyone will click through to the deed.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in draft because this is a technical rather than legal proposal.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 11:''''' '''Clarify the language about URI specified by the licensor''' - currently it says, in part, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work," and what it means seems to be "as long as resource identified by such URI includes the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work."
* Pros: In a Web environment, many people may like to be attributed via some URL, such as a personal site or web page. Limiting the requirement of attributing wih a URL to only when the URL contains copyright information probably isn't what most people have in mind.
** Allowing a copyright holder to require attribution to a URL (any URL, regardless of what is behind it), may make it easier for downstream reusers to actually know who the copyright holder is, and how to contact them for additional permissions. For example, if I find an image on some web site and all the data I have is some user name and the CC license mark, then it may be nigh impossible to contact the copyright holder. On the other hand, if a licensor can require attribution to some certain URL, then finding that person suddenly becomes much more feasible.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 12:''''' '''Remove provision that allows licensors to request removal of attribution or amend it to cover only requests for removal of misleading or inaccurate attribution.'''
* Pros: This provision arguably does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines because it requires removal of attribution upon request, even where attribution is accurate and not misleading.
* Cons: The provision, in its 3.0 form, reassures licensors who are concerned their reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they license under Creative Commons.
* Other comments: More information about this proposal is included in this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html email thread] and this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html email thread] from license-discuss.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not incorporated. The purpose of this clause is to allow those receiving credit to distance themselves from reuses they may find objectionable. This encourages use of public licenses by those wishing to share but who are concerned about being associated with those uses. In all events, in this draft as in 3.0, removal is required only when reasonably practical.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

'''''BY Proposal No. 13:''''' '''Change "reasonable manner" qualifier in attribution requirements to "any reasonably prominent manner" or "a reasonable manner consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary attribution for the medium or means You are using.'''
* Pros: Helps ensure that attribution is made as prominent as is reasonably possible.
* Cons: May not add much because "reasonable" inherently means reasonably prominent.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Incorporated to some extent by including the concept of "context."

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

'''''BY Proposal No. 14:''''' '''Resolve the source of conflict between "in the manner designated by Licensor" (3.(a)(1)(A)) and "in any reasonable manner" (3.(a)(3)) in the public draft 2.''' One way is to add a language to 3.(a)(3) "For the avoidance of doubt, if you cannot strictly give attribution in the manner designated by the Licensor, it is okay as long as your manner of giving attribution is reasonable based on the medium, means and context in which the Work or Adaptation is used." A Licensor may well designate that the author should be attributed on the opening page of any Adaptation in color, with the author's name hyperlinked to a certain web page.
* Pros: Resolve a (seeming) source of conflict that may stifle reuse of licensed works.
* Cons: Additional words mean a lay person has to spend additional unpleasant time to read the license.
* Other comments:

== Marking requirements ==
Beyond the marking requirements related to attribution described above, the CC licenses contain additional requirements for properly marking a CC-licensed work:

* in those licenses that permit adaptations (BY, BY-NC, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA), if an adaptation is made (including any translation in any medium), the licensee must take reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work"; <ref> See Section 3(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>
* for every copy of the work distributed or publicly performed, the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(a) of the licenses.</ref>
** include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the license;
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license and to the disclaimer of warranties;
* for every adaptation of the work that is distributed or publicly performed (where adaptations are permitted), the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations</ref>:
** include a copy of, or the URI for, the license (for the original work); <ref> The international (unported) BY-SA and BY-NC-SA incorrectly refer to "Applicable License" in Section 4(b). This is a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata#Incorrect_reference_to_.22the_Applicable_License.22 known error].</ref>
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license (for the original work) and to the disclaimer of warranties.

These marking requirements have attracted some criticism:
# For adaptations, lack of clarity or uniformity as to placement of the mark or label indicating that changes were made to the original work.
# Absence of flexibility (such as through a reasonableness requirement) for inclusion of the URI.

'''Note: For proposals relating to marking requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

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

'''''Marking Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Making the inclusion of the URI subject to a "reasonable to the medium or means" requirement'''
* Pros
* Cons
* Other comments
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, though only required if the URI references a resource containing attribution or licensing information.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.

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

== Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0==

In draft 1 of v.4, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations.

Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor:
*Name of the author
*Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution
*Title of the work
*Copyright notice
*URI associated with the work
*URI associated with the CC license
*Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license

(1) Is there any other information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical.
*'''Comments:'''
*Is it necessary to require attribution? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Can licensors select their desired attribution elements in the Chooser, rather than mandating a specific set? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*Should there be an element for related data sets? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007061.html]
*"Attribution Parties" should be dropped entirely. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**But: some works made possible/assisted by parties who are not the author; there should be space to credit them. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Requiring removal of attribution may not be in line with DFSG. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html]
**Benefit does not exceed cost if this is true, unless required by moral rights (which should be clarified). [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]
*Publish a standard for correct attribution, but allow experimentation in community-developed standards, which licensors may follow but are not bound to. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*There are going to be scaling issues with requiring licensees to provide the name of the author - this could go all GFDL very quickly, with big bulky booklets or attribution pages required for the smallest amount of derivation. In particular, I'm worried about places like Wikipedia - you get articles with hundreds or thousands or ''tens'' of thousands of unique contributors. Listing all of them seems like the sort of overkill that undermined the GFDL, and is likely to cause implementation problems for licensors - if you come up to well-trafficked wikis and tell them that, in order to use 4.0 and not seriously vex anyone using their content, they're going to have to provide a method of getting an incredibly barebones list of all contributors to a specific page that people can copy and paste...that could take time and effort that are better spent on other things. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*An additional concern is that "name of the author" is unnecessarily vague; I'd change it to "the author's chosen name or pseudonym" (which is basically how it works in the UK anyway - the author gets to choose). My issue is that when I see "name of the author", I think "real name", and again, I don't think this is likely to scale or apply to online works nicely. It reads as if contributors will have to out themselves to use the licenses without messing with licensees, and while I know this isn't what's meant, some clarity would be helpful. [[User:Oliver Keyes|Oliver Keyes]] ([[User talk:Oliver Keyes|talk]]) 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(2) All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem?
*'''Comments:'''

*For many elements, licensees don't know how to comply and may be confused by leaving it open-ended; we should provide guidance and/or verbatim statements for unfamiliar elements such as "copyright notice". [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Many reusers are unfamiliar with the "URI" acronym and need explanation, examples, or replacement with amore common term. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007062.html]
*Amount of flexibility OK, but if adjusted should be in the direction of more flexibility. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(3) If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well?
*'''Comments:'''
*It is probably better to allow not just "a URI" but "one or more URIs." For example, it is common for MediaWiki-based Wikis (including this CC Wiki) to have multiple pages that list contributors. Such list of contributors for this page could be viewed by clicking "History" near the top of the page. And it is currently spanning two pages, having two different URIs.
**Given that URL shortener is currently rather popular, it is better to allow "a resource referenced by the URI that is contained in the resource referenced by the URI" to also benefit from this clause. The current language may be interpreted that the resource containing (i)-(iii) above should be at the URI specified, as opposed to URI redirected from the URI specified.
**Better yet, it should perhaps be allowed to use a URI for attribution to point to the resource referred to by that URI and other resources easily identifiable from that resource.
*Allow a licensee to create a resource (such as a web page listing all attribution information), and use its URI, when that resource contains (i)-(iii).
*In some cases, the resource at a URI contains only (i) and not (ii) and (iii). I think it is okay still to allow replacing the list of names of authors with a URI and supply (ii) and (iii) separately.
*Copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, etc., should be readable even offline, so URI alone is insufficient. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*Allow experimentation in community-developed standards. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(4) Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license.
*'''Comments:'''
*The complication could come from four sources that I can imagine: a) language and font that is not readily available for medium or means licensee wants to use; b) visual, audio, text, and other media-specific requirements that does not fit with licensee's medium or means; c) how a licensee (or even his lawyer) can know that some specific attribution is required when he is not fluent in the language, and/ or the work is voluminous; d) one may not know if an attribution element provided by a performer (in a video or audio work, say) or author, means "licensor" "supplied" that element for attribution, because the licensor's relation with the author /performer is not necessarily known to the potential licensees. (Is licensor the same person or not? is a question not necessarily easy to answer, for example.)
**See also, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of the difficulties surrounding attribution compliance.
**These complications could result in failure to comply, and/ or decision not to use the work because of the high cost of compliance/ risk of failing to comply. But this is not really limited to "specific attribution requirements" discussed here.
**One possible way to deal with this (or a part of this) issue is to tolerate failure to attribute when the attribution elements are supplied in a manner neither prominent, conventional, nor consolidated with other element that is supplied in a prominent or conventional manner.
**A question arises when one uses URI (i.e. an external resource) to give attribution. Is

*No, compliance with attribution is already difficult enough. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
**Agreed with difficulty, and we don't want to make it harder to distinguish libre/non-libre content. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007065.html]

*Nonstandard requirements increase transaction costs. Community standards for additional requirements could enable automation to reduce these costs. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

(5) Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not?
*'''Comments:'''
*Pro: It is in general difficult to determine what is "supplied" by "licensor." It is not necessarily easy to determine what is title, author's name, notice referring to the license, etc. (See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of these difficulties.)
*Con: Citation may not enable the recipient of the work to find the original. Current level of requirement allow licensors to make sure that a recipient, if interested, can reach the original, and its author/ licensor.
*Perhaps prominently and explicitly placed specific attribution requirements should be followed to the extent reasonably practicable with the medium or means to the licensee, but in other cases the attribution could be left to flexible interpretation of the licensee.

*Yes, it gives more freedoms to users & encourages growth of free content community. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007063.html]
*No, insufficient for many licensors, especially some OER projects. [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]
*Enable licensors to require a standard for attribution, let licensors figure out appropriate standard? [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-May/007072.html]

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue here.''
* ePSIplatform guest blog post dated February 11th, 2011: "[http://epsiplatform.eu/content/cc-tools-and-psi-supporting-attribution-protecting-reputation-and-preserving-integrity CC tools and PSI: Supporting attribution, protecting reputation, and preserving integrity]"
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licenses: Users]

== Notes ==
<references/>

License Versions

2012-08-07T08:54:54Z

Tomo: reverting to a previous version to remove spam

This page identifies some of the improvements to the Creative Commons license suite from the publication of the first licenses in December, 2002, through the current version 3.0, and highlights important similarities among the major license versions released to date. For more information on using CC tools or works offered under Creative Commons licenses, consult the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions Frequently Asked Questions page.] For a further historical perspective, you may also review defunct CC legal tools at the [http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses retired legal tools page].

==License blog posts==
The chart below presents the major license versions, their launch dates, and blog posts announcing public comment periods, the launch of a license suite, and changes to the new licenses. It does not reference the unfinished version 3.x ([http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3.01 3.01], [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3.5 3.5]) licenses, which are not in active discussion and are not expected to be published. Version 3.0 is the recommended and most recently-published Creative Commons license suite; the 3.x license discussions address further potential upgrades and changes that may (or may not) be considered when CC commences discussion on the next [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4 version 4.0 license]. The [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata Legalcode Errata page], to which you should feel free to contribute, catalogs minor bugs in the licenses such as typographical errors.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! License version*
! Release date
! Call for public comment
! Launch announcement
! Explanation of changes from prior version
|-
| 1.0
| 2002 Dec 16
|
| [http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/3476 Creative Commons Unveils Machine-Readable Copyright Licenses]
|
|-
| 2.0
| 2004 May 25
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3981 Versioning -- Public Review Begins]
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses]
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses]
|-
| 2.5
| 2005 June
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 Tweaking CC's Standard Attribution Language -- An Invitation to Comment]
|
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457 Comments Period Drawing to a close for Draft License Version 2.5]
|-
| 3.0
| 2007 Feb 23
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 Version 3.0 -- Public Discussion Launched]
| [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249 Version 3.0 Launched]
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3 Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses -- A Brief Explanation]
|}

* Note that CC also released a version 2.1 suite for jurisdictions like Spain, Australia and Japan, whose localized ports of the 2.0 suite contained errors.

==International License Development Process==

Creative Commons develops, releases and updates its public copyright licenses (and other legal tools) via an open and inclusive process of engagement with Creative Commons’ global network of attorneys and affiliates, as well as varied communities and constituents, that includes the publication of drafts, formal comment periods and transparent decision-making. This process culminates in the publication of the preferred, most up-to-date set of CC licenses for use around the world. Creative Commons released its latest version of the licenses in February 2007. Those licenses are known as the 3.0 international (also called the 3.0 “unported” and formerly referred to under version 2.0 as the “generic”) license suite.

While each set of licenses produced by CC is drafted to conform with copyright law, many of the improvements to the version 3.0 license suite brought the licenses further into line with international copyright law. Once a suite of licenses is released, Creative Commons grants permission to legal experts around the world under formal agreement to adapt (or “port”) the licenses where necessary to more fully align the text with the laws of different legal jurisdictions and translate the licenses to the local language(s). See our [http://creativecommons.org/international international] page for more information or access the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Jurisdiction_Database jurisdiction database] to compare the international (unported) licenses and the ported licenses of various jurisdictions.

In each instance, the resulting ported licenses are intended to have the same legal meaning and effect as the international (unported) licenses and the ported licenses of other jurisdictions at the same license version. Porting follows the same open and inclusive processes used to produce the international licenses: publication of drafts, comment periods, engagement with communities and constituents who use the licenses, and transparent decision-making processes. It also involves close oversight and review by CC staff.

==License Suite Versions==

The chart below and linked explanations that follow detail some of the improvements and important similarities among Creative Commons license versions. Some of the explanations contain links to further information on the topic.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! License Suite Version
! 1.0
! 2.0
! 2.5
! 3.0
|-
|'''All international (unported/generic) and ported licenses'''
|
|
|
|
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Nomenclature_.28for_unported_licenses.29 Nomenclature (for unported licenses)]
| Generic license
| Generic license
| Generic license
| International (unported) license
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Technical_Measures_by_Licensees_Prohibited Technological measures by users of CC licensed works prohibited]
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Attribution_required Attribution required]
| Not all licenses
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Credit_to_others_contemplated Credit to others contemplated]
| No
| No
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Requests_for_removal_of_attribution_contemplated Requests for removal of attribution contemplated]
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Collecting_societies_regimes_addressed Collecting societies regimes addressed]
| No
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Representations_and_warranties_by_licensor_included Representations and warranties by licensor included]
| Yes
| No
| No
| No
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#.22No_endorsement.22_clause_included "No endorsement" clause included]
| No
| No
| No
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Moral_rights_clause_included Moral rights clause included]
| No
| No
| No
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Adaptations_.28if_allowed.29_must_be_marked_as_such Adaptations (if allowed) must be marked as such]
| No
| No
| No
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Definition_of_.22NonCommercial.22_unchanged_.28same_in_all_versions.29 Definition of "NonCommercial" (has remained unchanged in all versions)]
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Use_of_licenses_for_copyrightable_compilations_of_data_anticipated Use of licenses for copyrightable compilations of data anticipated]
| Yes (implied)
| Yes (implied)
| Yes (implied)
| Yes (explicit)
|-
| '''International (unported/generic) ShareAlike licenses'''
|
|
|
|
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Compatible_licenses_may_be_used_for_adaptations_of_works_originally_offered_under_CC_ShareAlike_licenses Compatible licenses may be used for adaptations of works originally offered under CC ShareAlike licenses]
| No
| CC only
| CC only
| Yes
|-
| '''Licenses ported to jurisdictions with sui generis rights'''
|
|
|
|
|-
| [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions#Sui_generis_rights_in_databases_are_waived_for_uses_that_do_not_implicate_copyright Sui generis rights in databases are waived for uses that do not implicate copyright]
| No
| No
| No
| Yes
|}

==Nomenclature (for unported licenses)==

Before the launch of the version 3.0 licenses, the international (unported) licenses were called the “generic” licenses. The generic licenses were drafted to conform with U.S. law and conventions. Starting with version 3.0, Creative Commons [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization drafted its core suite of licenses to conform to relevant international treaties and drafting conventions]. In this sense, the version 3.0 international (unported) license suite is jurisdiction-agnostic: it does not mention nor is it drafted against any particular jurisdiction's laws or statutes, but rather it is intended to function without adjustment in all jurisdictions around the world. You may [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Jurisdiction_Database access the jurisdiction database] and compare the international (unported) license to the ported licenses of various jurisdictions.

==Technical Measures by Licensees Prohibited==

All CC license versions prohibit licensees (as opposed to licensors) from using effective technological measures such as “digital rights management” software to restrict the ability of those who receive a CC licensed work from a licensee to exercise rights granted under the license. To be clear, encryption or an access limitation is not necessarily a technical protection measure prohibited by the licenses. For example, content sent via email and encrypted with the recipient's public key does not restrict use of the work by the recipient. Likewise, limiting recipients to a set of users (e.g., with a username and password) does not restrict use of the work by the recipients. In the cases above, encryption or an access limitation does not violate the prohibition on technological measures because the recipient is not prevented from exercising all rights granted by the license (including rights of further redistribution).

[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian This treatment was re-evaluated during the public process leading to release of the version 3.0 license suite.] CC considered arguments in favor of such measures, coupled with an obligation of parallel distribution. However, those arguments were ultimately rejected.

==Attribution required==
The version 1.0 suite is unique because it contains some CC licenses that do not require attribution. [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 All subsequent license suites make attribution a standard requirement] unless the licensor specifies otherwise. The required mode of attribution differs slightly among the versions, and is progressively more flexible with each subsequent version.

==Credit to others contemplated==

Prior to the version 2.5 suite, CC licenses contemplated crediting the author only. Versions 2.5 and 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 allow licensors to identify another party or organization for attribution], called the “Attribution Party.” This feature was introduced in part to alleviate burdensome or difficult attribution situations, such as may be the case when many people contribute to a wiki article or other multi-author, collaborative effort. In versions 2.5 and 3.0, licensors may designate another party for attribution purposes -- such as a sponsor institute, publishing entity or journal -- in addition to or instead of the author. [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457 You may review some of the concerns raised when CC proposed this change].

==Requests for removal of attribution contemplated==

All license versions after version 1.0 require attribution. However, legislation in many countries gives authors the right to control the use of their name in association with their works. Therefore, CC licenses require licensees to remove (otherwise required) attribution to the creator from collections or adaptations to the extent practicable at the creator’s request.

==Collecting societies regimes addressed==
Many users of Creative Commons licenses are also members of collective rights societies like ASCAP and BMI, which manage copyright on behalf of owners. Every version from the 2.0 suite onward contains clauses that account for the existence of those arrangements. They provide, for instance, that for works offered under a NonCommercial license, the licensor retains the right to collect royalties for commercial uses of the work. The [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 structure of the provisions in the 2.x licenses] (2.0, 2.1 and 2.5) differs from that in the version 3.0 licenses. The 2.x licenses specifically regulate music, sound recordings and webcasting. As those licenses were ported to different jurisdictions, those provisions were adjusted to conform to the local collecting society situation.

The [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80.94_Collecting_Societies version 3.0 licenses employ a broad, harmonized strategy to collective rights societies]. This strategy still allows jurisdictions to adopt an approach that best aligns with local law and society structure, but also ensures that the approach is implemented consistently across jurisdictions. In the international (unported) license, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor reserves the right to collect those royalties in jurisdictions in which collection cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in which compulsory royalty collection can be waived, the right to collect royalties is waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved for commercial uses in those licenses that permit NonCommercial use only. For voluntary royalty schema, the licensor reserves the right to collect royalties for commercial uses in those licenses that permit NonCommercial use only, and completely waives the right to collect such royalties for licenses permitting commercial use. This clause covers both individual royalty collection and, in the event that the licensor is a member of a collecting society that collects such royalties, collection via such societies. Some affiliates porting the version 3.0 licenses to interface with local collective rights regimes have chosen to include only those clauses which address the particular situation in the jurisdiction. Others have adopted all the language from the international (unported) license in hopes of international harmonization, or out of concern that their jurisdiction’s regime may change. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Jurisdiction_Database You may compare how different jurisdictions implemented this section of the license].

==Representations and warranties by licensor included==

In the 1.0 license suite, the licensor extends warranties, for instance that the work does not infringe the work of another. [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 These warranties were eliminated in all subsequent license versions.] All post-version 1.0 suites explicitly offer the work “AS IS” and disclaim all liabilities. Notwithstanding, some ports have included warranties where required under local law. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Jurisdiction_Database You may compare how different jurisdictions implemented this section of the license].

=="No endorsement" clause included==

While attribution is required in all licenses post-version 1.0, a licensee may not provide credit in a way that suggests endorsement or sponsorship by the licensor. In some jurisdictions, wrongfully implying that an author, publisher or anyone else endorses a particular use of a work may be unlawful. While this has always been the case, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#MIT the version 3.0 licenses for the first time explicitly prohibit endorsement or sponsorship without the consent of the licensor].

==Moral rights clause included==

While the existence and extent of moral rights differ by jurisdiction, the most consistently present rights are those of attribution and integrity (the right to prevent or halt the prejudicial use of one’s work by another). The 1.0 and 2.x generic licenses were drafted to conform to U.S. law, and because U.S. law recognizes moral rights in only very limited circumstances, the generic versions of those licenses suites do not address moral rights of authors.

Reflecting the global, harmonized approach of the version 3.0 license suite, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80.93_Moral_Rights CC addressed the issue clearly in the international (unported) licenses]. Since moral rights are not waivable in most jurisdictions, CC did not include a waiver of those rights in the international licenses. Instead, the licenses specifically instruct users that they “must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.” This mandate forbids licensees from making uses that would otherwise violate authors’ moral rights of integrity. The attribution requirement is intended to satisfy the right of attribution. In the porting process, some jurisdictions slightly adjust this provision with CC’s permission to specify that moral rights are waived to the extent necessary to effect the license to the degree a waiver is possible under applicable law. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Jurisdiction_Database You may compare how different jurisdictions implemented this section of the license].

==Adaptations (if allowed) must be marked as such==

Beginning with the 3.0 license suite, licenses that permit the creation of adaptations require licensees to take reasonable steps to label the work as such. For instance, the adaptation could include a notice to the effect that, “The original work has been modified.”

==Definition of "NonCommercial" unchanged (same in all versions)==
While Creative Commons’ licenses have evolved over time, the scope of permitted uses under the NonCommercial (“NC”) licenses has remained unchanged across all license suites. The NonCommercial clause prohibits the exercise of rights granted under the NC license “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” Creative Commons carried out a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 study on the NonCommerical clause and users’ understandings]. However, the exact meaning of the clause is still debated.

==Use of licenses for copyrightable compilations of data anticipated==
Creative Commons licenses may be used with all copyrightable works (note that CC does not recommend its licenses for use with computer software). Such works include compilations of data that exhibit the requisite level of creativity for copyright protection under applicable national law. Thus, to the extent compilations of data are protected by copyright, Creative Commons licenses are suitable licenses for exercising that right. For the avoidance of doubt, version 3.0 licenses explicitly include such compilations in the definition of “work.”

==Compatible licenses may be used for adaptations of works originally offered under CC ShareAlike licenses==

Users of works licensed under CC’s ShareAlike licenses must make adaptations and collections of those works available under the same terms and conditions. The version 1.0 licenses require that the adaptations be distributed under exactly the same license as was applied to the original work. Starting with the release of the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 2.x license suites, CC expanded compatibility] by allowing adaptations to be licensed under the same or later version of the original license, including other ported versions of the same or later-version of the license. The [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#BY-SA_.E2.80.94_Compatibility_Structure_Introduced 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike goes one step further], by allowing adaptations of works licensed under its terms to be licensed under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” defined to mean licenses approved by CC as essentially equivalent to the 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license. To date, CC has not approved any other licenses. [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8213 You may also review CC’s statement of intent for ShareAlike licenses].

==Sui generis rights in databases are waived for uses that do not implicate copyright==

A few early (2.0, 2.5) European jurisdiction CC license ports licensed database rights along with copyright.

Although the generic and international (unported) license suites do not mention sui generis rights, starting with the version 3.0 licenses, CC established a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf policy for how those rights are addressed in ported licenses in those jurisdictions where sui generis rights exist.] The policy provides that version 3.0 EU jurisdiction ports must license sui generis rights subject to the terms and conditions of the license just like copyrights and neighboring rights, but also must waive license requirements and prohibitions (attribution, share-alike, etc) for uses triggering database rights — so that if the use of a database published under a CC license implicated only database rights, but not copyright, the CC license requirements and prohibitions would not apply to that use. The license requirements and prohibitions, however, continue to apply to all uses triggering copyright. Other ports and the unported license are silent on database rights: databases and data are licensed (i.e., subject to restrictions detailed in the license) to the extent copyrightable, and if data in the database or the database itself are not copyrightable the license restrictions do not apply to those parts (though they still apply to the remainder). Thus, regardless of the CC 3.0 license at play (unported, an EU port, another port), uses which implicate only database rights will not trigger the license conditions, while uses which implicate copyright will.

In addition, the policy precludes exportation of the sui generis rights to jurisdictions where such rights are not recognized through inclusion of a territoriality limitation, thereby avoiding the imposition of restrictions based on sui generis rights via contract where those rights are not enforceable or recognized. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Jurisdiction_Database You may compare how different jurisdictions implemented this section of the license].

4.0/Attribution and marking

2012-06-01T11:36:21Z

Tomo: /* Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0 */ many comments

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' This page aggregates discussion topics involving attribution and marking requirements, as the two are closely related and have never been clearly or uniformly differentiated. Attribution has been a standard feature of all CC licenses since the [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 version 2.0 suite]. Currently, attribution requirements are primarily contained in Section 4 of the 3.0 licenses. Marking requirements are interspersed throughout the license, including (in version 3.0) in Section 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the licenses permitting adaptations, and in Section 4(a) of the two ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND).
</div>

{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' In light of our goal to make CC licenses simpler and more user-friendly, we have considerably revamped the manner in which the attribution and marking requirements are conveyed in the license. Most importantly, we have consolidated all of the attribution and marking requirements into one section of the license, outlined them in list form and have labeled that section accordingly. To increase license compliance, we have provided that all attribution requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner depending on the means and medium used. Last, we have added a shortcut, which allows licensees to include the URI associated with the licensed work (or a hyperlink) to satisfy several of the attribution requirements. We look forward to your input on these changes and others, including other suggestions for adjusting this provision to facilitate large collaborations such as Wikipedia. Our goal is to best ensure a proper balance between the author’s attribution rights and the need for flexibility given that any license violation results in automatic termination (at least as currently drafted). See also the discussion regarding relaxing the [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|termination provision]].

Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_attribution_in_4.0|attribution]] and [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Proposals_for_marking_requirements_in_4.0|marking]] proposal below. }}

== Attribution ==

The current 3.0 licenses require users of a work to implement the following in any reasonable manner: <ref> See the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users#Marking_on_Your_Site Marking Page] for further information.</ref>

* keep copyright notices intact; and
* reasonable to the medium or means used by the licensee,
** provide the name the original author (or her pseudonym, or other attribution party, when provided);
** provide the title of the work if supplied;
** include the URI associated with the work (if it refers to the copyright notice or licensing information); and
** where an adaptation is created (when permitted by the license), include a credit stating that the work has been used in the adaptation <ref>Per Section 4(b) of the license, in the case of an adaptation or collection, where a credit for all contributing authors appears, the credit required must be at least as prominent as the credits for other contributing authors.</ref>

All 3.0 licenses allow licensors to request removal of the credit when their works are reproduced in a collection, as well as when their works are adapted (where permitted by the licenses). Specifically, all six version 3.0 licenses provide: <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses. </ref>

:: ''If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.''

:: And in BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA, and BY-NC, additionally:

:: ''If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(__), as requested.'' <ref>See Section 4(a) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>

The attribution requirement is reflected on the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC deeds] as:

:: ''Attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).''

A few [[Case_Law|legal decisions]] have successfully enforced the attribution requirement.

The attribution requirements have drawn some criticism:
# General difficulty understanding what is required on the part of licensees, in part due to the “reasonable to the medium or means” language but also because the language is difficult to parse.
# Are too onerous and do not align with community practices.
# The requirements insufficiently anticipate or account for analog distributions and performances, making it challenging to comply (same criticism is equally applicable to other marking requirements, below).
# Absence of a mechanism for requesting or permitting removal of a credit for reproductions of an unmodified work when not reproduced as part of a collection.<ref>Although, a licensor may always enter into a separate agreement with licensees to have attribution waived.</ref>

'''Note: For criticisms, issues and proposals relating to attribution requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

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

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''BY Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Consolidate the attribution requirements into a single location within the licenses (e.g., Section 4) and simplify language, including all other marking requirements (see below), such as providing the URI for the license.'''
* Pros: Users of licensed works would understand requirements more easily, which fosters reuse.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Consolidated, reorganized and simplified for greater understandability and to facilitate compliance.

'''''BY Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Introduce further flexibility into the requirements, to bring them closer into alignment with community practices.'''
* Pros: This would reduce unintentional violations of the licenses, which is especially important because a violation of the license results in automatic termination.
* Cons:
* Other comments: For example, one [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006604.html proposal] from license-discuss is to remove the provision requiring that a credit for an adaptation or collection must be as prominent as the other contributing authors. This requirement might be excessive in some circumstances.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' To increase license compliance, attempted to introduce more flexibility by providing that all requirements may be implemented in a reasonable manner.

'''''BY Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand the existing mechanism for requesting removal of the attribution credit so licensors can request removal for any reuse.'''
* Pros: There may be situations where licensors would prefer not to be associated with a particular website, and this would enable them to avoid association by removing attribution credit.
* Cons: Allows people to require removal of author's name even where credit is accurate and factual.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change. Note that this revision may also have relevance where the moral right of withdrawal exists, arguably giving the licensor a functional equivalent when using a perpetual, irrevocable public license.

'''''BY Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Create a mechanism in the license allowing licensors to waive attribution completely.'''
* Pros: Potentially useful for keeping alive CC BY-SA but waiving BY aspect without needing a separate and incompatible copyleft (CC SA, which existed and has been deprecated for some time)
* Cons: Reduces need for and potential adoption of CC0.
* Other comments: Couldn't a licensor waive attribution requirements outside of the license with an additional statement and without needing to add anything to the legalcode?
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in this draft, although draft does permit licensors to seek removal of attribution elements for any reuse, including reuse in unmodified form. May be possible to address as technical solution rather than within legal code.

'''''BY Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Relax the requirement to "keep intact" copyright notice, notice referring to the license, and notice referring to disclaimers of warranty; and allow translation, contextualization, and possibly other modification of those notices.'''
* Pros: Reduces the risk for users to overlook copyright notice, notice referring to the license, or notice referring to disclaimers of warranty. This risk is higher in at least 2 situations: 1) When those notices are written in languages that a user do not understand well; and 2) When the work under a CC license is long or complex. For example, a notice referring to disclaimers of warranty might not be easily detectable in a given photo gallery web site with multiple pages with many different sections. (And you are required to keep intact "all" such notices.)
** Allowing contextualization of the notices would reduce the risk of bearing non-sensical or even ineffective notices. For example, if you use a text from web page to create a book, to "keep intact" a notice saying "content of this web page is under CC-BY 3.0 Unported" does not make good sense for readers of a book. (And in practice, many license notices are written in this kind of context-specific way.)
** In some cases, to "keep intact" a notice is impossible. For example, a notice may be given as an audio, as a part of radio program. A user cannot "keep intact" the audio notice if he wants to use the content of the audio for a photo or a book. More importantly, notice seems to be given visually in many cases, by using a CC license logo. To keep intact a logo may be challenge if a user wants to create a non-visual work, or use the work in an environment where only text-data is usable.
** In theory, this requirement to keep intact "all" notices could be used to intentionally block further reuse even when license and technology would allow reuse. Imagine a user of a licensed CC-BY-SA work adds a few hundred notices to an Adaptation. Those who wishes to use such work would find it very difficult to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" such notices. Allowing more flexible attribution and marking would prevent such effort. Another theoretical example would be to embed notices in easy-to-overlook places within a movie, a video game, or a long book. A user may need to first find all the notices to comply with the requirement to keep intact "all" notices.
** Note also that reuse (creation of adaptations/ derivatives) under BY-SA licenses would end up accumulating license notices. "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic" may appear "This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 US." That would look like the work is dual-licensed, while it is not. It is simply that an original work was under 2.0, and a derivative is under 3.0.
** As far as I can tell, in practice, very few people comply with (or even understand) this requirement, so relaxing it would have the effect of bringing the license into alignment with common usage. If common usage has been ignorning, at least to some extent, this requirement for the past 5 or 6 years, then that is probably a pretty good argument against the con that unwanted exploitation might arise, as I'm not aware of any court battles over this point.
* Cons: Like many relaxation of requirements, it could serve as an opening for unwanted exploitation.
* Other comments: I think there is some room for interpretation what exactly is to "keep intact."
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated some changes in the spirit of this proposal. See the 3.0/4.0 comparison chart on the [[4.0_Drafts|4.0 Drafts page]] for more details.

'''''BY Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Make clearer what is meant by "credit" by stopping the use of the word in two different ways.''' - "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation" is one place where the word appears, and "remove ... any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested" is another place where the same word is used but to mean a wider set of information.
* Pros: Increase the ease of complying the license terms, and reduce unintended failure to comply with the requirements.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by avoiding use of the term ''credit'' in this draft.

'''''BY Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Explicitly allow attribution via a provision of a URI, when a web page with that URI provides attribution'''
* Pros: This would solve the problem sometimes referred to as attribution stack-up - when there are too many authors to attribute to, that would restrict the scope of reuse. Allowing the use of a web page to provide attribution, and requiring just a display of its URL for attribution would make reuse possible in those cases. A typical example - copying some text from Wikipedia's heavily edited article to a blog. If you need to copy the whole list of the authors, it could be difficult and time-consuming. If you could simply show a URL of the page on Wikipedia where you can see a list of people edited the page, that would be a lot easier and quicker.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, but we have retained requirement that the licensee must provide the URI only if it references copyright notice or licensing information. Further input needed, including suggestions for other alternative means for allowing attribution.

'''''BY Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Consider giving the right to request credit removal to actual people receiving credits.''' - The current license allows only licensor to make such a request. Note that a CC licensed work may not carry information about licensor's name or contact at all. Credits may tell licensee about authors and other entities the credits are given to. When a CC-BY-SA work is adapted a few times by a few different parties, a licensee may not be able to tell who the licensors are.
* Pros: When removal request has to come from a licensor, there are two consequences: 1) A licensee cannot tell a removal request coming from authentic licensor from fake one, and 2) authors and other entities receiving credits may or may not necessarily know how to contact a licensor when they want to request a removal.
* Cons: A complication could still arise if this proposal is implemented because authentification of authors and other entities receiving credits are not easy, either. It is perhaps easier than telling who is a licensor for a given set of credit.
* Other comments: In general, it is not easy to understand the distinction between an author and a licensor.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not included. Granting rights to third parties who are not a party to the license presents challenges on multiple levels.

'''''BY Proposal No. 9:''''' '''Consider limiting the "keep intact" and other crediting & marking obligations to only those pieces of information that are clearly present and easily identifiable. Make a licensee's failure to comply with properly crediting not a trigger for terminating the license.''' - For example, it is often difficult to tell if a URI accompanying a work is "specified" by the licensor. The same can be said even about the name of an author, when there are more than one name displayed for the same account. Flickr accounts may have an account name and a name of a person. It may be difficult to tell if a file name is meant to be a title for a photo or the photo is untitled. Many blog posts are accompanied by poster's account names, separate from their full names (typically linked from those nick names), which is different from name of the organization (typically found at the copyright notice) the blog is for. Which name is "supplied" as the name of the Original Author in this case?
* Pros: Increased ease of use of licensed works.
* Cons: In theory, unwanted crediting, or omission thereof may increase.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change by specifying that only information supplied (such as name and title) must be provided and subjecting all requirements to reasonableness standard. See also discussion regarding [[4.0/Sandbox#Termination_criteria_should_be_relaxed|Relaxation of Termination Provision]].

'''''BY Proposal No.10:''''' '''Consider increasing machine-readability of credits and marks.'''
* Pros: If a simple script can identify all or most of the information needed for giving a credit, it would improve license compliance for a wider range of works and licensees.
* Cons: If done in legalcode(?) this could result in massive incompliance with licenses, as machine-readability is hard to get right
* Other comments: It seems like this should be done regardless, but in external tooling work by the tech team and the rest of the CC-using ecosystem?
** It's not clear what this proposal means to say. For example, the HTML provided by the CC license chooser does contain attribution metadata, as long as the copyright holder provided that information when the filled out the chooser form. As far as downstream reuse, this proposal would imply that reusers would need to likely manually enter that metadata, which isn't going to happen. At the moment, the main way in which this attribution metadata is revealed to reusers is if they follow the license mark to the license deed, in which case attribution HTML will be provided on the deed, which itself contains metadata. However, not everyone will click through to the deed.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not addressed in draft because this is a technical rather than legal proposal.

'''''BY Proposal No. 11:''''' '''Clarify the language about URI specified by the licensor''' - currently it says, in part, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work," and what it means seems to be "as long as resource identified by such URI includes the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work."
* Pros: In a Web environment, many people may like to be attributed via some URL, such as a personal site or web page. Limiting the requirement of attributing wih a URL to only when the URL contains copyright information probably isn't what most people have in mind.
** Allowing a copyright holder to require attribution to a URL (any URL, regardless of what is behind it), may make it easier for downstream reusers to actually know who the copyright holder is, and how to contact them for additional permissions. For example, if I find an image on some web site and all the data I have is some user name and the CC license mark, then it may be nigh impossible to contact the copyright holder. On the other hand, if a licensor can require attribution to some certain URL, then finding that person suddenly becomes much more feasible.
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change.

'''''BY Proposal No. 12:''''' '''Remove provision that allows licensors to request removal of attribution or amend it to cover only requests for removal of misleading or inaccurate attribution.'''
* Pros: This provision arguably does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines because it requires removal of attribution upon request, even where attribution is accurate and not misleading.
* Cons: The provision, in its 3.0 form, reassures licensors who are concerned their reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they license under Creative Commons.
* Other comments: More information about this proposal is included in this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html email thread] and this [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006729.html email thread] from license-discuss.
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not incorporated. The purpose of this clause is to allow those receiving credit to distance themselves from reuses they may find objectionable. This encourages use of public licenses by those wishing to share but who are concerned about being associated with those uses. In all events, in this draft as in 3.0, removal is required only when reasonably practical.

'''''BY Proposal No. 13:''''' '''Change "reasonable manner" qualifier in attribution requirements to "any reasonably prominent manner" or "a reasonable manner consistent with, to the extent feasible, any customary attribution for the medium or means You are using.'''
* Pros: Helps ensure that attribution is made as prominent as is reasonably possible.
* Cons: May not add much because "reasonable" inherently means reasonably prominent.
* Other comments:
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Proposed after 4.0 d.1 publication.

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

== Marking requirements ==
Beyond the marking requirements related to attribution described above, the CC licenses contain additional requirements for properly marking a CC-licensed work:

* in those licenses that permit adaptations (BY, BY-NC, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA), if an adaptation is made (including any translation in any medium), the licensee must take reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work"; <ref> See Section 3(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations.</ref>
* for every copy of the work distributed or publicly performed, the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(a) of the licenses.</ref>
** include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the license;
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license and to the disclaimer of warranties;
* for every adaptation of the work that is distributed or publicly performed (where adaptations are permitted), the licensee must: <ref> See Section 4(b) of the licenses that permit adaptations</ref>:
** include a copy of, or the URI for, the license (for the original work); <ref> The international (unported) BY-SA and BY-NC-SA incorrectly refer to "Applicable License" in Section 4(b). This is a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata#Incorrect_reference_to_.22the_Applicable_License.22 known error].</ref>
** keep intact all notices that refer to the license (for the original work) and to the disclaimer of warranties.

These marking requirements have attracted some criticism:
# For adaptations, lack of clarity or uniformity as to placement of the mark or label indicating that changes were made to the original work.
# Absence of flexibility (such as through a reasonableness requirement) for inclusion of the URI.

'''Note: For proposals relating to marking requirements for adaptations, please see the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page.'''

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

'''''Marking Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Making the inclusion of the URI subject to a "reasonable to the medium or means" requirement'''
* Pros
* Cons
* Other comments
* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated change, though only required if the URI references a resource containing attribution or licensing information.

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

== Questions about attribution/marking in 4.0==

In draft 1 of v.4, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations.

Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor:
*Name of the author
*Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution
*Title of the work
*Copyright notice
*URI associated with the work
*URI associated with the CC license
*Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license

(1) Is there any other information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical.
*'''Comments:'''

(2) All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem?
*'''Comments:'''

(3) If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well?
*'''Comments:'''
*It is probably better to allow not just "a URI" but "one or more URIs." For example, it is common for MediaWiki-based Wikis (including this CC Wiki) to have multiple pages that list contributors. Such list of contributors for this page could be viewed by clicking "History" near the top of the page. And it is currently spanning two pages, having two different URIs.
**Given that URL shortener is currently rather popular, it is better to allow "a resource referenced by the URI that is contained in the resource referenced by the URI" to also benefit from this clause. The current language may be interpreted that the resource containing (i)-(iii) above should be at the URI specified, as opposed to URI redirected from the URI specified.
**Better yet, it should perhaps be allowed to use a URI for attribution to point to the resource referred to by that URI and other resources easily identifiable from that resource.
*Allow a licensee to create a resource (such as a web page listing all attribution information), and use its URI, when that resource contains (i)-(iii).
*In some cases, the resource at a URI contains only (i) and not (ii) and (iii). I think it is okay still to allow replacing the list of names of authors with a URI and supply (ii) and (iii) separately.

(4) Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license.
*'''Comments:'''
*The complication could come from four sources that I can imagine: a) language and font that is not readily available for medium or means licensee wants to use; b) visual, audio, text, and other media-specific requirements that does not fit with licensee's medium or means; c) how a licensee (or even his lawyer) can know that some specific attribution is required when he is not fluent in the language, and/ or the work is voluminous; d) one may not know if an attribution element provided by a performer (in a video or audio work, say) or author, means "licensor" "supplied" that element for attribution, because the licensor's relation with the author /performer is not necessarily known to the potential licensees. (Is licensor the same person or not? is a question not necessarily easy to answer, for example.)
**See also, [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of the difficulties surrounding attribution compliance.
**These complications could result in failure to comply, and/ or decision not to use the work because of the high cost of compliance/ risk of failing to comply. But this is not really limited to "specific attribution requirements" discussed here.
**One possible way to deal with this (or a part of this) issue is to tolerate failure to attribute when the attribution elements are supplied in a manner neither prominent, conventional, nor consolidated with other element that is supplied in a prominent or conventional manner.
**A question arises when one uses URI (i.e. an external resource) to give attribution. Is

(5) Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not?
*'''Comments:'''
*Pro: It is in general difficult to determine what is "supplied" by "licensor." It is not necessarily easy to determine what is title, author's name, notice referring to the license, etc. (See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=57509&oldid=57508 this edit] for some concrete examples of some of these difficulties.)
*Con: Citation may not enable the recipient of the work to find the original. Current level of requirement allow licensors to make sure that a recipient, if interested, can reach the original, and its author/ licensor.
*Perhaps prominently and explicitly placed specific attribution requirements should be followed to the extent reasonably practicable with the medium or means to the licensee, but in other cases the attribution could be left to flexible interpretation of the licensee.

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue here.''
* ePSIplatform guest blog post dated February 11th, 2011: "[http://epsiplatform.eu/content/cc-tools-and-psi-supporting-attribution-protecting-reputation-and-preserving-integrity CC tools and PSI: Supporting attribution, protecting reputation, and preserving integrity]"
* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users Best Practices for Marking Content with CC Licenses: Users]

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2012-06-01T09:53:47Z

Tomo: /* Termination */ a narrower range of exemption from termination (re: attribution failure)

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

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

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

'''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors. Please see the [[4.0/Sandbox#Additional_permissions_framework|Additional terms category]] below for a proposal allowing the addition of other terms that could cover specialized disclaimer and limitation language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Fair use baseline==

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

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

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Additional terms framework ==

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

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

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

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

Essentially, this does three things:

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

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

==Termination==

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

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

* Consider not immediately terminating people who failed to attribute properly when the attribution required is not very clear.
**When title, name of an author, etc. are not supplied, one does not have to include those elements in the attribution. This seemingly simple and clear rule is not very easy to interpret in real contexts. Think, for example, a Flickr page [http://www.flickr.com/photos/46799485@N00/4394306288/] where the user has both account name and what looks like his real name. Which are the names of the author of the work to be attributed? Is there a chance that the user is merely a Licensor and not an author? We often find photos with titles made of some serial number and prefix. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/46799485@N00/7287338646/]. Is title "supplied" here? And think what is the notice referring to the notice on that page. Is the text "some rights reserved" the only such notice? How about a tiny icon representing a CC-BY license? How about the word "Attribution" that appears when you put the mouse over that icon? And then there are questions about copyright notices and notice referring to warranty disclaimers. At the bottom of a Flickr page is copyright notice by Yahoo! and a link to, among other things, its terms of use, which include warranty disclaimer. Are these something to be included as a part of attribution? That is probably up to the relationship between Yahoo! and the Flickr user, mainly defined by the Flickr's terms of use. A provider of content-sharing platform like Yahoo! may play in some instance the role of Licensor, and in other instances, the provider is a mere third-party. Careful examination of Flickr's terms of use may reveal an answer to that particular question, if one can read the terms of use in English.
**The challenge could be greater with voluminous works, audio, video, video games, etc. It is easy to fail to detect all the elements for attribution. Are authors' names supplied when a talk-show style podcast introduces all the panelists? Which names among the end credits are authors, and which are not?
**Failure to answer those questions all correctly would lead to wrong attribution, which in turn results in license termination. That is too restrictive a condition to promote remix and reuse.
**Major failure for compliance is related to attribution requirements. Ver. 4.0 draft 1 is a lot easier to comply, because of the "reasonableness" standard and consolidation of various requirements into a list format. But my suspicion is that it could do more.
**A potentially related proposal is to make attribution machine-readable (Proposal 10, [[4.0/Attribution_and_marking]]). This, if introduced certain way, may resolve most the issue discussed here in a very different way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2012-06-01T08:56:05Z

Tomo:

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

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

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

'''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors. Please see the [[4.0/Sandbox#Additional_permissions_framework|Additional terms category]] below for a proposal allowing the addition of other terms that could cover specialized disclaimer and limitation language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Fair use baseline==

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

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

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Additional terms framework ==

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

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

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

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

Essentially, this does three things:

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

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

==Termination==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2012-06-01T08:54:52Z

Tomo: additional point on the previous edit

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

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

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

'''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors. Please see the [[4.0/Sandbox#Additional_permissions_framework|Additional terms category]] below for a proposal allowing the addition of other terms that could cover specialized disclaimer and limitation language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Fair use baseline==

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

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

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Additional terms framework ==

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

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

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

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

Essentially, this does three things:

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

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

==Termination==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2012-06-01T08:40:14Z

Tomo: /* Other issues for 4.0 */ place of anti-TPM clause

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

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

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==

'''Treatment in 4.0d1:''' The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, “To the greatest extent permissible,...” We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors. Please see the [[4.0/Sandbox#Additional_permissions_framework|Additional terms category]] below for a proposal allowing the addition of other terms that could cover specialized disclaimer and limitation language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Fair use baseline==

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

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

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Additional terms framework ==

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

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

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

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

Essentially, this does three things:

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

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

==Termination==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Notes ==
<references/>

License Versions

2012-04-23T01:56:11Z

Tomo: de-spamming - reverting to the version: 04:57, 10 December 2011 by Mike Linksvayer

PDM FAQ

2012-04-19T04:12:05Z

Tomo: de-spam

[[Category:FAQ]]
[[Category:PDM]]
[[Category:Public domain]]

These Public Domain Mark FAQs contain information that you should familiarize yourself with before applying the Public Domain Mark (“PDM”) to a work, or before using a work that is marked with the PDM. The information provided below is not exhaustive – it may not cover important issues that could affect you.
__TOC__
These FAQs are intended to supplement, not replace, our existing [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ FAQs] and our [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0 FAQs]. You are encouraged to review those FAQs before using the PDM or any of our other legal tools or licenses. You should also read the PDM deed carefully, as well as the information linked to from the deed. The deed and supplemental information contain important information about the work that has been marked, and should be fully understood before you apply it to a work or use a PDM-marked work.

Please note: '''Creative Commons does not provide legal advice.''' The information provided below is not a substitute for legal advice and is not complete. Please consult your own legal advisor if you have any questions or concerns about the information provided below, about the Public Domain Mark or about Creative Commons licenses and tools generally.

=== Questions about the Public Domain Mark generally ===

==== What is the Public Domain Mark? ====

The Public Domain Mark (“PDM”) is a tool that allows anyone to mark and tag a work that is free of known copyright restrictions worldwide, all in a way that clearly communicates that status to the public and allows it to be easily discoverable. The PDM is not a legal instrument like CC0 or our licenses; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. It should only be used to label a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world, typically very old works. It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work. Just like CC0 and our licenses, PDM has a metadata-supported deed and is machine readable, allowing works properly tagged to be readily discovered over the Internet.

==== How does it work? ====

Anyone can use the PDM to mark a work that is free of known copyright restrictions. Information about the work, its author(s), and the person marking the work is supplied through our [http://creativecommons.org/choose/mark PDM Chooser] and embedded in the HTML generated for the work. When supplied, this information may help users of the work evaluate the copyright status of the work for themselves, and learn more about the work. Again, please keep in mind that the PDM does not affect the legal status of the work or the legal rights of the author, the person identifying it or others. The PDM serves a marking and labeling function only.

====What is the difference between the PDM and CC0?====

PDM and CC0 differ in important respects and have distinct purposes. CC0 is intended for use only by authors or holders of copyright and related or neighboring rights (including sui generis database rights), in connection with '''works that are still subject to those rights''' in one or more jurisdictions. PDM, on the other hand, can be used by anyone, and is intended for use with''' works that are already free of known copyright restrictions throughout the world'''.

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Review a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_PDM_comparison_chart chart comparing the attributes of PDM and CC0], and learn more about [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0].

====Can I use the PDM with data, such as metadata? What about databases?====

Yes, PDM can be applied to any work that is free of known copyright restrictions. This means, for example, that you can use PDM to mark [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metadata metadata], which is data about data, if the metadata is not copyrightable or otherwise free of copyright. For example, whether or not a photograph is still protected by copyright, metadata that describes the photograph may be unprotected by copyright. In that instance, PDM could be applied to the metadata itself.

PDM can also be applied to databases that are not protected by copyright, including databases containing metadata. The treatment of databases under copyright law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however, sometimes dramatically. Additionally, databases are also granted sui generis protection in some jurisdictions, which may limit the ability to extract and/or reuse information from the database even if the information itself in the public domain. If you are uncertain whether a database is protected by copyright around the world, then you should not mark the database itself with the PDM, but could use PDM to mark unprotected content in the database.

If you are the creator or maker of a database and want to ensure that anyone can freely extract and reuse content (subject, of course, to other rights that may apply to the contents of the database such as a photograph still under copyright), then you may wish to consider using CC0 to waive all of your copyright and sui generis database rights in the database itself. In all cases, clearly marking and labeling the works to which PDM and CC0 apply is important.

==== What about CC’s Public Domain Dedication and Certification? Can that tool still be used? ====

With the launch of the PDM, Creative Commons is officially deprecating its Public Domain Dedication and Certification (“PDDC”). CC no longer recommends the PDDC for use in any situation. The PDDC had served the dual purposes of allowing a copyright holder to dedicate a work to the public domain, and to mark and certify a work as being in the public domain. We discovered that having a single tool performing both functions was confusing, among other things. In early 2008, we published [http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 CC0] to take on the dedication function the PDDC had been performing. We [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13304 announced] at that time that we would be working to improve the way people mark or “tag” a work with information relevant to a work’s public domain status. The PDM is that improved tool. The PDM now assumes the marking and tagging function previously served by PDDC, thereby replacing the PDDC as the recommended tool of choice for doing so.

For those who have used the PDDC to date, you can remain confident that CC will continue to support and serve the PDDC deed.

If you need to certify your public domain dedication, you may visit a service provider such as [http://www.registeredcommons.org RegisteredCommons].

=== Questions for those thinking about applying the PDM to a work ===

==== Who can apply the Public Domain Mark to a work? ====

Anyone who believes a work is free of known copyright restrictions may use the PDM. Keep in mind, however, that the PDM is recommended only for works that are free of known copyright restrictions around the world. You should not apply the PDM to works that you know are only in the public domain in a limited number of jurisdictions. We anticipate that most of the time, the PDM in its current form will only be applied to very old works.

==== If I apply the PDM to a work, am I warranting or promising that the work is free of copyright around the world? ====

No, not unless the law otherwise provides or you want to provide a separate warranty to that effect. Like all CC legal tools, the PDM deed includes express disclaimers of warranties and liabilities, to the extent those are enforceable under applicable laws. Additionally, the PDM deed puts users on notice that the work may not be free of copyright restrictions in all jurisdictions. That notice is intended to caution would-be users of the work that it can be difficult to account for all laws and all possible underlying factual circumstances that impact the copyright status of a particular work in every jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the disclaimers and notice, if you know that a work you would like to mark is still in copyright in one or more jurisdictions, please do not apply the PDM. We are working on other means for marking works that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions while still restricted by copyright in others, and hope to publish that soon.

==== How do I apply the PDM to a work? ====

Our [http://creativecommons.org/choose/mark PDM Chooser] will lead you through process. When completed, you will be provided with HTML code that you can copy and paste into your website. Please be aware that it is up to you, the person identifying the work, to publish the work marked with the PDM to your website or elsewhere. Creative Commons does not publish any works and cannot accept responsibility for doing so.

==== What are the benefits of including the information requested by the PDM Chooser? ====

The information you provide when using the PDM Chooser will be included in the rendered PDM deed that is linked to the work, as well as included in the machine-readable code. Potential users of the work can then use that information to find out more about the work and its status. Although the information fields are optional, we encourage you to provide all of the information you can for the benefit of users.

==== Does the PDM require those using a work I have marked to give me credit? Or the author? ====

No, there is no credit or attribution requirement, either for the person marking the work or the original author of the work. However, this does not mean that you cannot ask others to give you credit for your effort digitizing and/or marking the work in accordance with community or professional norms and standards.

PDM makes it very easy for users to cite the work itself. If information about the author and work is supplied during the PDM Chooser stage, an HTML citation box will appear on the deed. Users of the work can easily copy the code contained in the box and paste it into the webpage where the work is being used, providing citation information. We encourage everyone identifying works using the PDM Chooser to supply that information; and whenever made available, we encourage users of PDM-marked works to use the ready-to-use citation information.

=== Questions for those thinking about using a PDM-marked work ===

==== Can anyone use a work that is marked using the PDM? ====

Yes, the PDM doesn’t restrict who may use a marked work. Generally, any work free of copyright restrictions can be used for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking anyone’s permission first. Note, however, that the PDM deed identifies some important caveats under '''Other Information''' that all would-be users of the work should understand. Among others, it’s possible that a work marked using PDM is not free of all copyright restrictions in all jurisdictions around the world, or that other laws outside of copyright restrict how the work may be used. Read more about these possibilities and others, below.

If you are in doubt about whether or how you can use a PDM-marked work, you should consult with your legal advisor.

==== Am I really free to use a work marked with the PDM anyway I want, anywhere in the world? ====

Like all works that are labeled “free of known copyright restrictions,” “in the public domain” or similar – including works published on the Flickr Commons, museum or library websites or elsewhere – the answer is simple: “It depends.” In this one respect, PDM is no different than any other public domain marking system. That said, one of the most important advantages PDM has over other systems is that the deed alerts would-be users of a work to '''some''' of the important, potential limitations on their ability to use the work.

These potential limitations and caveats are highlighted on the PDM deed under '''Other Information'''. Users are strongly encouraged to review and understand those in advance of using a PDM-marked work (or any other work characterized as part of the public domain, for that matter).

==== Why might a free of copyright restrictions in one jurisdiction not be free of copyright restrictions everywhere? ====

Copyright laws around the world vary; there is no harmonized or standardized copyright law that all jurisdictions follow for purposes of determining when a work is no longer restricted by copyright. Additionally, circumstances causing a work to become part of the public domain under the laws of one jurisdiction may not cause a similar result under others’ laws. Thus, the identical work may be restricted by copyright in some jurisdictions while free of copyright in others.

A work may have this limited or “hybrid” public domain status for a variety of reasons. Some jurisdictions have unusually long copyright terms, which may mean that a work free from copyright restrictions most everywhere else in the world may still be protected by the copyright laws of that particular country. Sometimes a work is no longer restricted by copyright in a jurisdiction because the author or owner failed to comply with formalities such as renewal of registration or publication with notice, where those formalities apply. It could also be the case that certain categories of works are not protected by copyright by operation of law in a particular jurisdiction, but may be afforded protection under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions. This is the case, for example, with [http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml U.S. government works].

CC does not recommend the current version of PDM for works with are in public domain in some jurisdictions but known to be restricted by copyright in others. Even when this recommendation is followed, however, you should be aware that the possibility still exists. We choose to alert would-be users to that possibility up front, however remote it may be.

==== What practices do those who apply PDM to works use to arrive at a determination that a work is free of known copyright? ====

That will depend. CC has not established standards, expectations or even suggested practices for those choosing to apply the mark. Nor are we qualified to do so. Every institution and individual applying the mark must exercise their own judgment for marking works they wish to indicate are free of known copyright. Our hope is that those practices will be published widely and made transparent so that would-be users of PDM-marked works are able to understand the review that was undertaken. We also encourage potential users of PDM-marked works to inquire about those practices with the identifying institution or individual if they want to know more.

Unless otherwise stated to the contrary, however, the person applying the PDM to a work is not guaranteeing anything about it, including what processes or diligence they engaged in before applying the PDM to a work. Creative Commons does not verify the copyright status of works to which the Public Domain Mark has been applied.

==== Are there other laws I should be aware of that might restrict my ability to use a PDM-marked work? ====

Probably. PDM is focused exclusively on copyright law and related and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ#What_are_neighboring_rights.3F neighboring rights]. It does not address the applicability (or inapplicability) of other laws, except to alert users that use of the work may be otherwise regulated or limited. For example, if the work contains an image or likeness of a person or their voice, privacy or [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Faq#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F publicity rights] may be implicated in some jurisdictions. Similarly, personal data protections laws could come into play depending on the nature of the work, its contents and the particular jurisdiction.

The freedom that comes with using a work in the public domain doesn’t extend to uses that may violate other applicable laws. Just as with works licensed under a CC license, you should be cognizant of other laws that may apply to your particular uses of a work.

==== Am I required to attribute the author of the work, or the person who applied the PDM to the work? ====

No, there is no legal requirement that you credit the author of the original work or the person who identified the work, only a request that you do so voluntarily if requested and the means are provided for doing so.

For purposes of author/work citation, the PDM deed provides HTML code that can be copy and pasted into a webpage to easily cite the author and the work if the person who marked the worked provided that information. We encourage you to take advantage of this copy/paste citation feature whenever possible.

==== How can I be sure that I can use the work as I would like? ====

The Public Domain Mark contains a disclaimer of warranties just like our licenses and CC0, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the work is free of all copyright restrictions in every jurisdiction around the world just because the mark is applied. You should also be aware of restrictions or limitations beyond copyright that may apply, such privacy, publicity, personal data laws and the like.

If you are in doubt, then we strongly recommend you not use the work until you have taken all the steps and precautions you feel you need to before doing so, which may include contacting the person who applied the PDM to the work and consulting legal counsel.

Translate

2012-04-19T04:11:03Z

Tomo: de-spam

<div style="font-size:125%; line-height:1.75em; margin-bottom:1.25em;text-align:justify;">Creative Commons would like to work with you in creating a strong voice for openness around the world. There are many Creative Commons produced or curated materials that need '''translation'''.</div>

{{PageColumn|
===[[Translating CC Deeds]]===
The Creative Commons licenses have been adapted to the copyright laws of [http://creativecommons.org/international/ quite a few jurisdictions]. Important materials such as the license engine and deeds should be localized. For information on this process, see the [[Translating CC Deeds]] page.

===[[CC Wiki:Translate|Wiki]]===
This wiki needs translated versions of pages. See the [[CC Wiki:Translate|CC Wiki Translate]] page for instructions on creating a translated version of a page.
===[[Casestudies|Case Studies]]===
Case Studies are stories of individuals, projects, and companies who use Creative Commons. [[Case_Studies#Translate_a_Case_Study|Translate]] a case study.
}}
{{PageColumn|
===[[Documentation#Help_Translate_Documents|Documentation]]===
Creative Commons produces guides, documentation, white papers, and other media documenting the licenses. Go to the [[Documentation#Help_Translate_Documents|Documentation]] page to see how you can help translate these resources.

===[[Videos]]===
See how you can help translate Creative Commons-produced videos.

===[[Legal_Tools_Translation|Licenses and Legal Tools]]===
Join projects working on translating the Creative Commons license suite and CC0 legal waiver into your local language.

}}

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:Tradução
}}

[[Category:i18n]]
[[Category:Translation Project]]

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__

Ayurveda

2012-04-19T04:07:48Z

Tomo: de-spam

{{ContentDirectory
|format=Text, Image, MovingImage, InteractiveResource
|mainurl=http://ayurved.tv/
|ccportal=http://ayurved.tv/
|size=200
}}
[http://ayurved.tv/ Ayurveda] is published under the Creative Commons License

[[Category:Content_Directory]]

4.0

2012-04-19T04:06:43Z

Tomo: de-spam

CC is embarking on a versioning process for its core license suite, which we expect will result in version 4.0. The first public discussions of 4.0 were held at CC's [[Global Summit 2011]]. The public process was kicked off with a [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29639?utm_campaign=newsletter_1111&utm_medium=blog&utm_source=newsletter blog post] laying out some of the key reasons for pursuing 4.0 at this time.

Since CC's launch in 2002, it has versioned its core license suite [[license versions|three times]], the last ([[Version 3|3.0]]) in early 2007. CC licenses constitute a [http://creativecommons.org/who-uses-cc globally-recognized framework], developed in consultation with legal experts and CC affiliate institutions in [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Affiliate_Network over 70 jurisdictions]. Over 500 million CC-licensed works have been published by their authors on the Internet. Today, Creative Commons licenses, public domain tools, and supporting technologies are the global standard for sharing across culture, education, government, science, and more.

Version 4.0 is a tremendous opportunity to ensure the license suite is ideally crafted to further CC's [http://creativecommons.org/about vision and mission] over the next decades. Please participate in this important discussion.

=== Goals and objectives ===

Creative Commons staff, board and community have to date identified several goals for the next version of its core license suite tied to achieving CC's goal and mission. These include:

:: ''Internationalization'' – further adapt the core suite of international licenses to operate globally, ensuring they are robust, enforceable and easily adopted worldwide;

:: ''Interoperability'' – maximize interoperability between CC licenses and other licenses to reduce friction within the commons, promote standards and stem license proliferation;

:: ''Long-lasting'' — anticipate new and changing adoption opportunities and legal challenges, allowing the new suite of licenses to endure for the foreseeable future;

:: ''Data/PSI/Science/Education'' — recognize and address impediments to adoption of CC by governments as well as other important, publicly-minded institutions in these and other critical arenas; and

:: ''Supporting Existing Adoption Models and Frameworks'' – remain mindful of and accommodate the needs of our existing community of adopters leveraging pre-4.0 licenses, including governments but also other important constituencies.

=== Organization and purpose of this wiki ===

This wiki is the central location for documenting key discussion topics and suggestions for improving the license suite in version 4.0, together with supporting information and relevant links. It is intended to supplement, not replace, the CC license discuss email list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses (subscribe)] that will serve as the main discussion forum for the versioning process just as it has with prior versioning efforts.

CC has pre-populated the wiki with key topics identified to date. We ask contributors to be thoughtful about placement of additional and related topics, and the creation of new pages altogether. Before starting a new page, consider posting the suggestion to the [[4.0/Sandbox|Sandbox]]. We would also prefer (but do not require) that contributors use their real names when editing the wiki.

=== Process ===

As a license steward and steward of the commons, our goal for the process is to ensure utmost transparency and inclusiveness. The 4.0 process will be conducted in line with our prior versioning efforts, with periodic publication of license drafts for public comment and documentation of issue resolution as that occurs. One important difference from our past efforts, however, is a formal requirements gathering period that will run for a period of time prior to publication of the first draft. During this period, we strongly encourage the broadest participation possible by everyone with an interest in the commons and the role open licensing plays in its future.

The primary discussion forum for issues relating to the 4.0 versioning process will be the CC license discuss email list. Please [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses subscribe] and add your voice to this important effort.

=== Draft timeline ===
The dates noted below are approximate and subject to change. The number of drafts and public comment periods may vary depending on the number and type of issues raised and how they are resolved, among other things. Watch this page for updates, including major events such as affiliate regional meetings where 4.0 discussions will take place.

{| class="wikitable" style="width: 75%; height: 200px" border="1"
|-
| September 2011
| [https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29639 Launch 4.0 process] at CC Global Summit
|-
| December 2011 thru mid-February 2012
| Requirements gathering period
|-
| April 2, 2012
| Publish first [[4.0_Drafts|draft of 4.0]]
|-
|April to May 2012
| Public comment period #1
|-
| June 2012
| Publish second draft of 4.0 (link to draft to be included here)
|-
| June to August 2012
| Public comment period #2
|-
| September 2012
| Publish third (and potentially last) draft of 4.0 (link to draft to be included here); begin porting consultation
|-
| September to October 2012
| Third (and potentially last) public comment period; porting consultation
|-
| October to December 2012
| Finalize and publish version 4.0 license suite
|}

=== Items for discussion ===

Various aspects of the license suite ''potentially'' could be improved in the version 4.0 licenses. We will gather and rigorously debate and analyze these items and corresponding proposals for handling them in version 4.0. We encourage the broadest possible engagement in this process. This is a particularly important goal during the requirements gathering stage when everyone is strongly encouraged (and our affiliates are expected) to provide feedback on proposed changes and suggest other changes they would like to see. Add, improve, and discuss specific items in the pages linked below.
'''If you do not find a suitable existing page and category for an item you would like to propose or discuss, please add it to the [[4.0/Sandbox]] where suggestions for new pages will be aggregated.'''

Finally, we encourage contributors to take the time to review [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions prior versioning efforts], including relevant discussions of important topics previously debated by the CC community and discussions related to their resolution. Being aware of and taking those into account will be important to an effective and efficient process, particularly if a request is made to revisit and potentially change direction in 4.0.

{{#ask:[[Category:4.0 Issues]] [[:+]]
|mainlabel=Item/Category Name
|format=broadtable
}}
Related pages
:[[4.0/Sandbox]]
:[[Porting Project]]
:[[4.0 Drafts]]
:[[4.0/Draft_1]]

4.0

2012-04-17T10:20:32Z

Tomo: removed another link

Japan

2012-02-29T08:10:44Z

Tomo: more change

{{Jurisdiction
|jurstatus=Active
|status=2.1
|country code=jp
|homepage=http://creativecommons.jp/
|twitter=http://twitter.com/#!/cc_jp
|region=Asia-Pacific
|affiliated=University of Tokyo
|affurl=http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index_e.html
|afffocus=Law Faculty
|afftype=academic institution
|plead1=Yuko Noguchi
|pemail1=info@creativecommons.jp
|plead2=Dominick Chen
|pemail2=dominick@creativecommons.jp
|flagurl=http://creativecommons.org/images/international/jp.png
}}
Visit the [http://creativecommons.jp/ jurisdiction's website].

The Creative Commons Japan license suite is available in the following version. [http://creativecommons.org/choose/?jurisdiction=jp License your work] under these licenses, or [http://creativecommons.org/choose choose] the international licenses. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Should_I_choose_an_international_license_or_a_ported_license.3F More info].

*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/jp/ Attribution 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NoDerivs 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.1/jp/ Attribution-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan]

Many thanks to all who contributed to the localization of the license suite.

Creative Commons is working with The University of Tokyo, Law Faculty to create Japan jurisdiction-specific licenses from the generic Creative Commons licenses.

=CC Japan List=

Chairman: Professor Nobuhiro Nakayama (University of Tokyo, Law Faculty)

Legal Project Lead: [mailto:info@creativecommons.jp Yuko Noguchi]

Public Project Lead: [mailto:dominick@creativecommons.jp Dominick Chen]

*[http://www.creativecommons.jp/ License draft].
*[mailto:cc-jp%20-at-%20lists.ibiblio.org Post a message].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-jp Subscribe to the discussion].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-jp/ Read the discussion archives].

=More about The University of Tokyo=

The University of Tokyo is the first national university in Japan, established in 1877. [http://www.j.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/course.html The Law Faculty] was one of the first faculties established, along with Faculties of Medicine, Engineering and Humanities. Since then, for about 160 years, the institute has played an central role in the field of Japanese legal research and education. The alumni includes many distinguished lawyers such as law professors, judges and other legal practitioners, as well as a number of talented government officials and politicians. The Law Faculty consists of departments of law and politics, and has about a hundred professors and associate professors.

=Roadmap=
(Created February, 2012)

==Current State and Priorities:==
CCJP as an organization is expanding in terms of volunteer staff, but not in terms of funding. Our primary resource therefore is the passion and time of those volunteers.

==Goals for 2012==

*Music:
** We will deepen ties with the indies music scenes and strengthen relationship with Dublab by supporting the launch of dublab.jp, in order to raise awareness about copyright problems along artists and listeners through various events.

* GLAM
** We will document and package our achievement of 2011 and publish it online so to publicly share our know-how of introducing CC licenses to art exhibitions.
** We will make progress in creating the English-language version of the package.
** We will also assist at least one more adoption of CC license by an art exhibition.
** We will explore other possibilities of supporting cultural and artistic digital archive through our growing network with the GLAM world.

*Law & Policy:
**We assist open government effort by contributing our expertise to the policy discussions on the issue, which is gaining increasing amount of interest in Japan.
**We will participate discussions on legal environment in which cultures could benefit from active use of copyrighted works, through symposiums, speeches, lectures. We will also contribute to raising the public’s awareness on copyright issues.
**However, feasibilities of these activities rely greatly on requests we receive from various parties.

*License:
**We will provide input to the version 4.0 discussions based on our discussions, views, and opinions on Japanese CC and other relevant licenses.
**We will explore ways to help Japanese government, if there is an opportunity, on licensing matters for its open government effort.
**We will monitor developments in open licensing in Japan, and get in contact with people invlolved in the development and adoption, if possible. We will examine if there is any action we can take to ensure interoperabilities among licenses

* Support
** We will begin revising our FAQ.
** We will review our inquiry system and consider improving the team.

* Network / PR
** We will hold socializing events such as CC Salon more than 3 times this year so to build relationship with people interested in CC, open culture, and other relevant issues.
** We will reorganize and improve our PR team in order to exploit social media such as blog, twitter, and Facebook, as well as our email newsletters, more efficiently. We will also execute reviews of our website to develop a better understanding of the issues, and address high-priority, low-cost issues.

*Research
** If other CC affiliates shows sufficient level of interest and committment, we will establish an international research group on open government issues, and publish a report to share its findings.

Japan

2012-02-29T08:07:56Z

Tomo: /* Goals for 2012 */ removing an item

{{Jurisdiction
|jurstatus=Active
|status=2.1
|country code=jp
|homepage=http://creativecommons.jp/
|twitter=http://twitter.com/#!/cc_jp
|region=Asia-Pacific
|affiliated=University of Tokyo
|affurl=http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index_e.html
|afffocus=Law Faculty
|afftype=academic institution
|plead1=Yuko Noguchi
|pemail1=info@creativecommons.jp
|plead2=Dominick Chen
|pemail2=dominick@creativecommons.jp
|flagurl=http://creativecommons.org/images/international/jp.png
}}
Visit the [http://creativecommons.jp/ jurisdiction's website].

The Creative Commons Japan license suite is available in the following version. [http://creativecommons.org/choose/?jurisdiction=jp License your work] under these licenses, or [http://creativecommons.org/choose choose] the international licenses. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Should_I_choose_an_international_license_or_a_ported_license.3F More info].

*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/jp/ Attribution 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NoDerivs 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.1/jp/ Attribution-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan]

Many thanks to all who contributed to the localization of the license suite.

Creative Commons is working with The University of Tokyo, Law Faculty to create Japan jurisdiction-specific licenses from the generic Creative Commons licenses.

=CC Japan List=

Chairman: Professor Nobuhiro Nakayama (University of Tokyo, Law Faculty)

Legal Project Lead: [mailto:info@creativecommons.jp Yuko Noguchi]

Public Project Lead: [mailto:dominick@creativecommons.jp Dominick Chen]

*[http://www.creativecommons.jp/ License draft].
*[mailto:cc-jp%20-at-%20lists.ibiblio.org Post a message].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-jp Subscribe to the discussion].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-jp/ Read the discussion archives].

=More about The University of Tokyo=

The University of Tokyo is the first national university in Japan, established in 1877. [http://www.j.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/course.html The Law Faculty] was one of the first faculties established, along with Faculties of Medicine, Engineering and Humanities. Since then, for about 160 years, the institute has played an central role in the field of Japanese legal research and education. The alumni includes many distinguished lawyers such as law professors, judges and other legal practitioners, as well as a number of talented government officials and politicians. The Law Faculty consists of departments of law and politics, and has about a hundred professors and associate professors.

=Roadmap=
(Created February, 2012)

==Current State and Priorities:==
CCJP as an organization is expanding in terms of volunteer staff, but not in terms of funding. Our primary resource therefore is the passion and time of those volunteers.

==Goals for 2012==

*Music:
** We will deepen ties with the indies music scenes and strengthen relationship with Dublab by supporting the launch of dublab.jp, in order to raise awareness about copyright problems along artists and listeners through various events.

* GLAM
** We will document and package our achievement of 2011 and publish it online so to publicly share our know-how of introducing CC licenses to art exhibitions.
** We will make progress in creating the English-language version of the package.
** We will also assist at least one more adoption of CC license by an art exhibition.
** We will explore other possibilities of supporting cultural and artistic digital archive through our growing network with the GLAM world.

*Law & Policy:
**We assist open government effort by contributing our expertise to the policy discussions on the issue, which is gaining increasing amount of interest in Japan.
**We will participate discussions on legal environment in which cultures could benefit from active use of copyrighted works, through symposiums, speeches, lectures. We will also contribute to raising the public’s awareness on copyright issues.
**However, feasibilities of these activities rely greatly on requests we receive from various parties.

*License:
**We will provide input to the version 4.0 discussions based on our discussions, views, and opinions on Japanese CC and other relevant licenses.
**We will monitor developments in open licensing in Japan, and get in contact with people invlolved in the development and adoption, if possible. We will examine if there is any action we can take to ensure interoperabilities among licenses

* Support
** We will begin revising our FAQ.
** We will review our inquiry system and consider improving the team.

* Network / PR
** We will hold socializing events such as CC Salon more than 3 times this year so to build relationship with people interested in CC, open culture, and other relevant issues.
** We will reorganize and improve our PR team in order to exploit social media such as blog, twitter, and Facebook, as well as our email newsletters, more efficiently. We will also execute reviews of our website to develop a better understanding of the issues, and address high-priority, low-cost issues.

*Research
** If other CC affiliates shows sufficient level of interest and committment, we will establish an international research group on open government issues, and publish a report to share its findings.

Japan

2012-02-29T05:42:51Z

Tomo: publishing ccjp roadmap

{{Jurisdiction
|jurstatus=Active
|status=2.1
|country code=jp
|homepage=http://creativecommons.jp/
|twitter=http://twitter.com/#!/cc_jp
|region=Asia-Pacific
|affiliated=University of Tokyo
|affurl=http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index_e.html
|afffocus=Law Faculty
|afftype=academic institution
|plead1=Yuko Noguchi
|pemail1=info@creativecommons.jp
|plead2=Dominick Chen
|pemail2=dominick@creativecommons.jp
|flagurl=http://creativecommons.org/images/international/jp.png
}}
Visit the [http://creativecommons.jp/ jurisdiction's website].

The Creative Commons Japan license suite is available in the following version. [http://creativecommons.org/choose/?jurisdiction=jp License your work] under these licenses, or [http://creativecommons.org/choose choose] the international licenses. [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Should_I_choose_an_international_license_or_a_ported_license.3F More info].

*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/jp/ Attribution 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.1/jp/ Attribution-NoDerivs 2.1 Japan]
*[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.1/jp/ Attribution-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan]

Many thanks to all who contributed to the localization of the license suite.

Creative Commons is working with The University of Tokyo, Law Faculty to create Japan jurisdiction-specific licenses from the generic Creative Commons licenses.

=CC Japan List=

Chairman: Professor Nobuhiro Nakayama (University of Tokyo, Law Faculty)

Legal Project Lead: [mailto:info@creativecommons.jp Yuko Noguchi]

Public Project Lead: [mailto:dominick@creativecommons.jp Dominick Chen]

*[http://www.creativecommons.jp/ License draft].
*[mailto:cc-jp%20-at-%20lists.ibiblio.org Post a message].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-jp Subscribe to the discussion].
*[http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-jp/ Read the discussion archives].

=More about The University of Tokyo=

The University of Tokyo is the first national university in Japan, established in 1877. [http://www.j.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/course.html The Law Faculty] was one of the first faculties established, along with Faculties of Medicine, Engineering and Humanities. Since then, for about 160 years, the institute has played an central role in the field of Japanese legal research and education. The alumni includes many distinguished lawyers such as law professors, judges and other legal practitioners, as well as a number of talented government officials and politicians. The Law Faculty consists of departments of law and politics, and has about a hundred professors and associate professors.

=Roadmap=
(Created February, 2012)

==Current State and Priorities:==
CCJP as an organization is expanding in terms of volunteer staff, but not in terms of funding. Our primary resource therefore is the passion and time of those volunteers.

==Goals for 2012==

*Music:
** We will deepen ties with the indies music scenes and strengthen relationship with Dublab by supporting the launch of dublab.jp, in order to raise awareness about copyright problems along artists and listeners through various events.

* GLAM
** We will document and package our achievement of 2011 and publish it online so to publicly share our know-how of introducing CC licenses to art exhibitions.
** We will make progress in creating the English-language version of the package.
** We will also assist at least one more adoption of CC license by an art exhibition.
** We will explore other possibilities of supporting cultural and artistic digital archive through our growing network with the GLAM world.

*Law & Policy:
**We assist open government effort by contributing our expertise to the policy discussions on the issue, which is gaining increasing amount of interest in Japan.
**We will participate discussions on legal environment in which cultures could benefit from active use of copyrighted works, through symposiums, speeches, lectures. We will also contribute to raising the public’s awareness on copyright issues.
**However, feasibilities of these activities rely greatly on requests we receive from various parties.

*License:
**We will provide input to the version 4.0 discussions based on our discussions, views, and opinions on Japanese CC and other relevant licenses.
**If we can gain assistance from the headquarters, we will finalize and publish CC 3.0 licenses and CC-Zero. We will ask for assistance.
**We will monitor developments in open licensing in Japan, and get in contact with people invlolved in the development and adoption, if possible. We will examine if there is any action we can take to ensure interoperabilities among licenses

* Support
** We will begin revising our FAQ.
** We will review our inquiry system and consider improving the team.

* Network / PR
** We will hold socializing events such as CC Salon more than 3 times this year so to build relationship with people interested in CC, open culture, and other relevant issues.
** We will reorganize and improve our PR team in order to exploit social media such as blog, twitter, and Facebook, as well as our email newsletters, more efficiently. We will also execute reviews of our website to develop a better understanding of the issues, and address high-priority, low-cost issues.

*Research
** If other CC affiliates shows sufficient level of interest and committment, we will establish an international research group on open government issues, and publish a report to share its findings.

4.0/Treatment of adaptations

2012-02-02T11:57:27Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for simplifying license compliance in 4.0 */

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' Four licenses in the CC license suite -- CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC, and CC BY-NC-SA -- allow licensees to create adaptations of the licensed work. By definition, an adaptation constitutes the new contributions by the person adapting the work and does not extend to the preexisting material.<ref>Article 2(3) of the Berne Convention: “Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works ''without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.''” (emphasis added) </ref> '''This is a complexity of copyright law, not the CC licenses themselves.''' Thus, when an adaptation of a CC-licensed work is created and licensed, the new license only applies to the adapter’s new contributions and not the original content. The original work is licensed to the downstream user directly from the original author. A user of an adaptation licensed under a CC license is receiving and must comply with (at least) two licenses -- one from the creator of the original work, and a second from the adapter (the person creating and licensing the adaptation) for use of the new content and modifications contributed by the adapter. This is because CC licenses do not allow sub-licensing.<ref>See Section 8(b) of CC BY: “Each time You Distribute or Publicly Preform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.”</ref> This nuance creates complications. </div>

== Licensing adaptations ==

When a licensee creates an adaptation of a CC-licensed work, he is required to release adaptations under the same license if the original work is licensed with a ShareAlike condition. But if the the original is licensed under CC BY or CC BY-NC, there is no express requirement to license adaptations under particular terms and conditions. CC’s [[FAQ]] state that adaptations must be released under a license at least as restrictive as the original, but this obligation is not explicit in the license.

Rather, to create an adaptation of a work licensed CC BY, the license says the adapter must attribute the original work, identify that his new work is an adaptation, and include the URI for the license under which the original is released. If the creator of the adaptation complies with these conditions, he may believe he is free to release his adaptation under any license, including CC0, or even reserve all rights under copyright.

Similarly, to create an adaptation of a work licensed CC BY-NC, the license says the adapter must meet the same requirements as BY, but also avoid using the original work for commercial purposes. If the creator of the adaptation complies with these conditions, including using his adaptation for non-commercial purposes only, he may believe he can license his adaptation without the NC condition.

CC’s license text has been criticized on this point for the following reasons:
# Because the license text does not explicitly dictate how adaptations must be licensed in CC BY and CC BY-NC, it is open to an interpretation that allows adaptations to be released under a less restrictive license, which may contradict the intentions of licensors.
# If adaptations are released under a different license than the original, it complicates the license obligations of downstream users as explained in detail below.

=== Proposal for clarifying how adaptations may/must be licensed in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Add explicit requirement to BY and BY-NC stating that adaptations of licensed work must be released under a license with at least the same conditions as the original work.'''
* Pros:
** This would likely conform to most licensors' expectations and assumptions about how the licenses work.
* Cons
** It would prevent licensees from releasing their easily-separable adaptations under less restrictive terms, which could negatively impact the commons.
*Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Drop BY-NC from the license suite, requiring licensors who want to prohibit commercial use to opt for either CC BY-NC-SA or CC BY-NC-ND.'''
* Pros:
** This would prevent any confusion about how NC adaptations are supposed to be licensed.
* Cons
** BY-NC licensors may not care how adaptations are released. If they did, they would likely use BY-NC-SA. Therefore, we may be imposing obligations on licensees that are unintended and unnecessary.
*Other comments:

'''For a proposal to retain flexibility for those licensing adaptations of CC-licensed work, see Adaptations Proposal No. 6 below.'''

== License obligations of downstream users ==

As explained above, when someone creates an adaptation of a CC-licensed work and licenses it, the license on the adaptation only covers the adapter’s contributions and does not extend to the original content. To the extent the original work remains distinguishable in the adaptation, the original is licensed to the downstream user directly from the original licensor. In other words, the person using the adapted work is the licensee under two separate licenses -- one from the adapter with respect to the new elements (i.e. the adaptation), and one from the original creator with respect to the original.

This creates a number of complications:
* '''definition of “work”''': because CC licensors are not obligated to identify exactly what “work” they are licensing, users of the adapted work may not be able to determine what elements of the literary or artistic work are original to the adapter
* '''attribution stacking''': the user of the adapted work must attribute the licensor of the adaptation and the licensor of the original work to the extent she uses the work in a way that implicates the copyright in both
* '''conflicting obligations''': if the adaptation is licensed under a different license than the original work, the user of the new work may be subject to conflicting license obligations when using the adapted work

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

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Require licensors of works that are adaptations of pre-existing works to include a clear notice that the license to the original work may also apply to those who use the adaptation.'''
* Pros:
** This would help alert licensees of adaptations to their potential obligations under prior licenses.
* Cons
** Licensors are already required to include license notice, so this may be redundant.
*Other comments: Rather than imposing another obligation on licensors, we could build better notice into the license text itself.

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Add explicit requirement to all licenses stating that adaptations of licensed work must be marked to identify changes and additions to the original work.'''
* Pros:
** Licensees of adaptations would then have notice about what license obligations apply to what portions of the whole.
* Cons
** This may not be practical in many (or even most) situations.
*Other comments: Might be better as part of best practices guide. See Adaptations Proposal No. 6 below.

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Require licensors of works that are adaptations of pre-existing works to copy/paste (or otherwise specify) attribution requirements for the original works in a fixed location (to ease compliance by licensees with all applicable licenses).'''
* Pros:
** Might improve attribution compliance by downstream users.
* Cons:
** Many times the attribution requirements for the original works will not be available, or this requirement will otherwise be impractical.
*Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Clarify and amplify the status of adaptations within the license text without adding any new requirements to the license; at the same time publish a best practices tutorial note explaining the nature of adaptations and highlighting the need to call out all applicable licenses when publishing an adapted work, so that users are made aware of all the conditions that apply (not just those related to the adaptation).'''
* Pros:
** Will provide a guide to those who are especially concerned with getting it right, but will not impose burdensome obligations generally.
* Cons:
** Only the most conscientious licensors will comply, so this may not have much effect.
* Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Consider allowing sub-licensing, at least for adaptations created under BY-SA, but possibly for a wider range of uses.'''

* Pros:
** It reduces the burden for users of a CC-licensed work when a work is adapted multiple times. If sublicensing is allowed, one does not have to consider all different CC-BY-SA licenses a work is under. Some of the licenses may be in another language, such as Japanese or French. If a potential user of a work does not have to read multiple license and just read one, that is a plus.
* Cons:
** We do not want to allow people to sub-license original works under different terms than the original license, which means we could not allow sub-licensing under non-SA licenses. Allowing sub-licensing under some licenses but not others increases complexity.
** Even if we limit sub-licensing to CC BY-SA, some licensors may not want their works sub-licensed under a later version of CC BY-SA.
** This may have negative effects on enforcement of the original copyright owner's rights. The licensee of the adaptation could rely on the sub-license as a defense to infringement.
* Other comments:
** The CC-BY-SA licenses are such that content under a version 2.0 cannot be used under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0. That means a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 work cannot wholly be released under CC BY-SA 3.0. The same thing could happen between BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0. It is too inconvenient for potential users of the adaptation if there are two or more licenses to follow for different parts of a work.
** NOTE: Beginning with Version 2.0 of CC BY-SA, the license states explicitly that an adaptation may be released under a later version of CC BY-SA. In other words, if you create an adaptation of a CC BY-SA v.2 work, you may release the adaptation under CC BY-SA v.3. This will also be the case with Version 4.0. Also, it is important to remember that any work that involves a remix of two or more CC-licensed works is subject to more than one CC license. The license always follows the work. See the explanation at the top of this page for more detail.
** NOTE2: However, when a work under CC-BY-SA 2.0 is used to create an adaptation, and the adaptation is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, it is not that the whole of the adaptation is usable under CC-BY-SA 3.0. It is more like a "blended" state of licenses - the parts of the adaptation inherited directly from the original work is usable under CC-BY-SA 2.0, and not under 3.0, whereas other parts of the adaptation is under CC-BY-SA 3.0. This is a direct consequence of not allowing sublicensing.
** NOTE3: But this is the case with all adaptations of CC-licensed works, not just those using different versions of the license. See above for more explanation.

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Allow sub-licensing solely to the extent necessary for a licensee to post CC-licensed third party content on an online platform.'''
* Pros:
** This would allow people to upload third party CC-licensed content to online platforms like Facebook without violating the terms of service or the terms of the CC license.
* Cons
** It may be difficult to craft language that is narrow enough to cover only this limited purpose.
*Other comments: Many terms of service require uploaders to grant a license to all content being uploaded to the online platform provider. Because licensees cannot sub-license CC-licensed content, this arguably prevents them from uploading it to common platforms like Facebook. This is especially problematic in the case of adaptations of CC-licensed works because it may prevent creators of adaptations from uploading and sharing their work on popular platforms.
*Note that even some platforms that "support" CC licensing does not necessarily accept uploading of CC-licensed works by a third party. See also a comment on [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=54537 Sandbox]

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

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating these and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Treatment of adaptations

2012-01-16T17:02:14Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for simplifying license compliance in 4.0 */ more explanations added for prop 6

{{4.0 Issue}}

<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
'''Page summary:''' Four licenses in the CC license suite -- CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC, and CC BY-NC-SA -- allow licensees to create adaptations of the licensed work. By definition, an adaptation constitutes the new contributions by the person adapting the work and does not extend to the preexisting material.<ref>Article 2(3) of the Berne Convention: “Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works ''without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.''” (emphasis added) </ref> '''This is a complexity of copyright law, not the CC licenses themselves.''' Thus, when an adaptation of a CC-licensed work is created and licensed, the new license only applies to the adapter’s new contributions and not the original content. The original work is licensed to the downstream user directly from the original author. A user of an adaptation licensed under a CC license is receiving and must comply with (at least) two licenses -- one from the creator of the original work, and a second from the adapter (the person creating and licensing the adaptation) for use of the new content and modifications contributed by the adapter. This is because CC licenses do not allow sub-licensing.<ref>See Section 8(b) of CC BY: “Each time You Distribute or Publicly Preform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.”</ref> This nuance creates complications. </div>

== Licensing adaptations ==

When a licensee creates an adaptation of a CC-licensed work, he is required to release adaptations under the same license if the original work is licensed with a ShareAlike condition. But if the the original is licensed under CC BY or CC BY-NC, there is no express requirement to license adaptations under particular terms and conditions. CC’s [[FAQ]] state that adaptations must be released under a license at least as restrictive as the original, but this obligation is not explicit in the license.

Rather, to create an adaptation of a work licensed CC BY, the license says the adapter must attribute the original work, identify that his new work is an adaptation, and include the URI for the license under which the original is released. If the creator of the adaptation complies with these conditions, he may believe he is free to release his adaptation under any license, including CC0, or even reserve all rights under copyright.

Similarly, to create an adaptation of a work licensed CC BY-NC, the license says the adapter must meet the same requirements as BY, but also avoid using the original work for commercial purposes. If the creator of the adaptation complies with these conditions, including using his adaptation for non-commercial purposes only, he may believe he can license his adaptation without the NC condition.

CC’s license text has been criticized on this point for the following reasons:
# Because the license text does not explicitly dictate how adaptations must be licensed in CC BY and CC BY-NC, it is open to an interpretation that allows adaptations to be released under a less restrictive license, which may contradict the intentions of licensors.
# If adaptations are released under a different license than the original, it complicates the license obligations of downstream users as explained in detail below.

=== Proposal for clarifying how adaptations may/must be licensed in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Add explicit requirement to BY and BY-NC stating that adaptations of licensed work must be released under a license with at least the same conditions as the original work.'''
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Drop BY-NC from the license suite, requiring licensors who want to prohibit commercial use to opt for either CC BY-NC-SA or CC BY-NC-ND.'''
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''For a proposal to retain flexibility for those licensing adaptations of CC-licensed work, see Adaptations Proposal No. 6 below.'''

== License obligations of downstream users ==

As explained above, when someone creates an adaptation of a CC-licensed work and licenses it, the license on the adaptation only covers the adapter’s contributions and does not extend to the original content. To the extent the original work remains distinguishable in the adaptation, the original is licensed to the downstream user directly from the original licensor. In other words, the person using the adapted work is the licensee under two separate licenses -- one from the adapter with respect to the new elements (i.e. the adaptation), and one from the original creator with respect to the original.

This creates a number of complications:
* '''definition of “work”''': because CC licensors are not obligated to identify exactly what “work” they are licensing, users of the adapted work may not be able to determine what elements of the literary or artistic work are original to the adapter
* '''attribution stacking''': the user of the adapted work must attribute the licensor of the adaptation and the licensor of the original work to the extent she uses the work in a way that implicates the copyright in both
* '''conflicting obligations''': if the adaptation is licensed under a different license than the original work, the user of the new work may be subject to conflicting license obligations when using the adapted work

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

[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Require licensors of works that are adaptations of pre-existing works to include a clear notice that the license to the original work may also apply to those who use the adaptation.'''
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Add explicit requirement to all licenses stating that adaptations of licensed work must be marked to identify changes and additions to the original work.'''
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Require licensors of works that are adaptations of pre-existing works to copy/paste (or otherwise specify) attribution requirements for the original works in a fixed location (to ease compliance by licensees with all applicable licenses).'''
* Pros:
* Cons
*Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Clarify and amplify the status of adaptations within the license text without adding any new requirements to the license; at the same time publish a best practices tutorial note explaining the nature of adaptations and highlighting the need to call out all applicable licenses when publishing an adapted work, so that users are made aware of all the conditions that apply (not just those related to the adaptation).'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:

'''''Adaptations Proposal No. 7:Consider allowing sub-licensing, for at least adaptations created under BY-SA, but possibly for a lot wider range of uses.'''''

The CC-BY-SA licenses are such that content under a version 2.0 cannot be used under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0. That means a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 work cannot wholly be released under CC BY-SA 3.0. The same thing could happen between BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0. It is too inconvenient for potential users of the adaptation if there are two or more licenses to follow for different parts of a work.

NOTE: Beginning with Version 2.0 of CC BY-SA, the license states explicitly that an adaptation may be released under a later version of CC BY-SA. In other words, if you create an adaptation of a CC BY-SA v.2 work, you may release the adaptation under CC BY-SA v.3. This will also be the case with Version 4.0. Also, it is important to remember that any work that involves a remix of two or more CC-licensed works is subject to more than one CC license. The license always follows the work. See the Treatment of adaptations page for further explanation.

NOTE2:However, when a work under CC-BY-SA 2.0 is used to create an adaptation, and the adaptation is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, it is not that the whole of the adaptation is usable under CC-BY-SA 3.0. It is more like a "blended" state of licenses - the parts of the adaptation inhereted directly from the original work is usable under CC-BY-SA 2.0, and not under 3.0, whereas other parts of the adaptation is under CC-BY-SA 3.0. This is a direct consequence of not allowing sublicensing.

* Pros: It reduces the burden for users of a CC-licensed work when a work is adapted multiple times. If sublicensing is allowed, one does not have to consider all different CC-BY-SA licenses a work is under. Some of the licenses may be in another language, such as Japanese or French. If a potential user of a work does not have to read multiple license and just read one, that is a plus.
* Cons:
* Other comments:

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

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating these and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2012-01-16T16:10:26Z

Tomo: a set of texts moved - leaving some note

4.0/Treatment of adaptations

2012-01-16T16:02:02Z

Tomo: some text moved from 4.0/Sandbox

4.0/Sandbox

2012-01-08T16:52:19Z

Tomo:

4.0/ShareAlike

2011-12-31T16:12:08Z

Tomo: /* Considerations regarding compatibility of other licenses */

{{4.0 Issue}}

There are roughly three issues that have been discussed for years that could potentially be addressed. Ideally, addressing one or more of these could increase clarity of relevant CC licenses, and increase range of and differentiation within CC license suite.

==ShareAlike scope==

Effectively, this has been treated as identical to potentially tweaking the definition of adaptations vs collections.
* Version 2.0 added "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License." (Please discuss this particular clarifying language on the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/license_subject_matter#Automatic_localization_of_the_license License subject matter page].)
* Many have wanted something similar added clarifying when use of an image creates an adaptation/derivative. This was visited especially during discussions with the Wikimedia community, leading to no immediate change, but an assurance that the scope of BY-SA's copyleft would only be increased, if changed at all in the 3rd point of [[CC Attribution-ShareAlike Intent]]

Relatedly, it has also been pointed out that CC license definitions of work/adaptation/collection are somewhat hard to read.

=== Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''SA Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Make no changes.'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Does not allow the creation to evolve. It is not made clear how to incorporate SA materials into otherwise licensed works.
* Other comments: There is already a 'no derivatives' option. The concept of derivation could be made more clear with examples such as "remix, translate, integrate, aggregate, etc."

'''''SA Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Make work/adaptation/collection definitions easier to read, but strive to not make any effective change.'''
* Pros: Will clarify terminology.
* Cons: New observations based on experience with current CC licenses may bot be taken into account.
* Other comments: Explain that the Share Alike clause discourages exploitave commercial uses while still allowing commerce in the commons and OER landscape.

'''''SA Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand scope of adaptation (thus SA) specifically for some class of use of images, analogous to synching added in 2.0.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Also allow certain exceptions such as mixing CC-by-SA with GPL or similarly spirited licenses.

'''''SA Proposal No. 4:''''' '''A more aggressive expansion of SA, including some collections, except those that are mere aggregations (see GPL).'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:

'''''SA Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Share the wealth clause, requesting that commercial gain (e.g. profits) be shared back to the original creator(s).'''
* Pros: gives financial incentive to release assets under Free Culture Certified licenses. Reduces concern about commercial (ab)uses of creative works.
* Cons:
** May be hard to figure out proportional income distribution. Perhaps a general guideline could ease this process.
** Introduces some of the issues raised by [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial the NC term] - namely, confusion over what is commercial use ('profits' are mentioned in this proposal) and could be a disincentive to share and remix works where otherwise allowed. NC is often adopted out of a (perhaps largely misguided because SA addresses it) concern for commercial exploitation. If 'share the wealth' becomes a new trend ('Yeah, of course I want to choose the option to receive money from others who use my work!') it may heavily reduce the cultural value of any works under that license.
* Other comments:
** Create a table of fair share profit distribution (perhaps percentage based) to guide the reciprocative process.
** Difficult to determine how to share profits. May need a public directory of CC licensors and their payment details. Perhaps link this in with profile pages on the CC site, creating an incentive to register your works here. (However, my understanding is that this costs the user a (albeit minimal) yearly fee, reducing access to this service.)

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

==Source-requiring SA==

(Note that scope and whether source required are independent of each other.)

Some would like a copyleft for creative works that requires not just sharing adaptations under the same license, but making preferred form for modification available, as the GPL does for software. FDL includes a weaker requirement of providing copies in "transparent" formats. Especially the former may be too far for BY-SA to go (but costs/benefits could be listed to see). Could possibly be addressed via compatibility, see next.

==Compatibility with other copyleft licenses==

Directly related to the interoperability goal of 4.0. The following licenses have been discussed at various points, regarding compatibility with BY-SA:
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Free Documentation License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL] (unique among these, could only be one-way with BY-SA as donor; would address desire for source-requiring license, long-term trend toward more mixing of "code" and "content" in ways beyond former accessing latter)
* [http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database LIcense] (ODbL)

Some things to consider in 4.0 process:
* What could be done to bring BY-SA into better alignment technically with these other licenses where they are in the same spirit?
* Should explicit compatibility with any of these be aimed for? In theory this could be a post-4.0 discussion assuming compatible licenses hook remains, but in practice, if compatibility is to be possible, 4.0 changes should be considered in that light
* Discuss with stewards of each of above licenses, with regard to BY-SA 4.0, future versions of their licenses, alignment, and explicit compatibility statements
* Similar to above, discuss with other stewards possibility of agreeing on/promoting common license text

===Considerations regarding compatibility of other licenses===

* Consider addressing uncertainty regarding releasing a work (adaptation/ derivative) under a CC Compatible license
**When I thought about CC-BY-SA 3.0 --> GFDL transition as a hypothetical case, it was not necessarily all clear how I would "follow" GFDL after creating a derivative of a CC-BY-SA'd work.
**To address the uncertainty, consider developing a "exemplary practice guideline" that would serve as a "safe harber" - i.e. the range of practice that is considered to be "in compliance" with both licenses for the transition purposes. Practice outside of the guideline may be okay, or maybe not. Insert some language to make this safe harbor effective in 4.0. After some licenses become compatible, develop such guidelines with steward of the compatible license.

''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License Libre Puro License] (draft)
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License#Preamble_for_the_Libre_Puro_License Preamble]
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License_Draft_Creative_Commons_Deed License deed]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say Libre]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge Libre knowledge]

4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-31T15:58:43Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */ adding one more point to prop. #5

4.0/Sandbox

2011-12-31T15:52:01Z

Tomo: /* Other issues for 4.0 */

Talk:Legalcode errata

2011-12-31T15:50:24Z

Tomo: /* Incorrect reference to "the Applicable License" */ a second thought of a sort

== link to this page ==
I've just discovered the "Ssection" mistake and luckily found this page by googling for "Ssection". This page isnt easily findable.[http://www.google.com/search?q=errata+site%3Acreativecommons.org+-site%3Awiki.creativecommons.org+-code.creativecommons.org+-inurl%3Atag] I think it would be useful to mention this wiki page at the top of each page of legalcode. [[User:Jayvdb|Jayvdb]] 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

==Incorrect reference to "the Applicable License"==

I noticed that the description of the error on that section is not matching with license texts referred to.
*The description reads, "Some 3.0 BY-SA and BY-NC-SA licenses (all English licenses except Australia 3.0)..."
*But as I checked, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode CC-BY-SA 3.0 AU] and [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/au/legalcode CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 AU] licenses do have the same error, if this is really an error.
**CC-BY-SA 3.0 AU require a licensee to "include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (such as a web link) for, the Applicable Licence with every copy of the Derivative Work You Distribute or publicly perform." (4B.b)
**CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 AU has the same language at the same section.
*In case you wonder, I see substantially the same language for [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode CC-BY-SA 3.0 US] (" include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, the Applicable License with every copy or phonorecord of each Derivative Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform" (4.b.(I))
*According what is explained in this errata page, referring to "the Applicable License" is wrong, and the reference should be to "this License." Was Australian license changed in the wrong way and bear the same error as other licenses in English?

I wonder, now I think about this, if the errata is wrong. Referring to "the Applicable License" might be correct.

The reason is that if a licensee change the license for an adaptation/ derivative work the licensee is distributing, what you want is a copy or URI of the license after the change, not that of the original work's license.

[[User:Tomo|Tomo]] 13:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I had another (additional) thought about this. There is a seeming error in a different part of this section.
*BY-SA 3.0 Unported 4(b) reads: ...If you license the Adaptation under the terms of any of the licenses mentioned in (i), (ii) or (iii) (the "Applicable License"), ... (III) You must keep intact all notices that refer to the Applicable License ... with every copy of the Work as included in the Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform;
** Here "keep intact all notices that refer to the Applicable License" is slightly confusing. It may be better to say "to this License."
**BY-SA 3.0 Australia 4.c.iii does not have that strangeness, because it says "to this License"

So the errata was probably meant to address this part of the license text, I came to think.

[[User:Tomo|Tomo]] 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomo

2011-12-27T15:28:09Z

Tomo:

My name is Tomoaki Watanabe. I am something like an Executive Director at CC Japan, and an occasional Wikipedian.
What I contribute reflects my views and opinions, not CC Japan's or any other entities I am affiliated with.

4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-27T14:35:42Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */ requirement about URI

4.0/Sandbox

2011-12-27T14:03:18Z

Tomo: /* Other issues for 4.0 */

Talk:Legalcode errata

2011-12-27T13:32:33Z

Tomo: errata wrong? (re: Incorrect reference to "the Applicable License")

4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-27T12:13:33Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */ adding one more justification for prop.#9

Talk:4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-26T15:18:19Z

Tomo: /* Error regarding marking requirements */ make it a bit more complete

==Error regarding marking requirements==

Hi. I just realized an error in this page. I wondered if I should go ahead and correct it - I might indeed do that later.

If you distribute or publicly perform an adaptation, you do not have to keep intact notices that refer to the license of the Work or disclaimer of warranties. That kind of requirement exists for a non-adapted work, but not for adaptation. The explanation on this page says that the requirement exist for adaptation, citing 4(b).

If you read 4(b) of CC-BY 3.0 Unported [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode], or CC-BY 3.0 US [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode], you can see that the requirement is not there.

--[[User:Tomo|Tomo]] 15:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-26T15:16:28Z

Tomo: found an error in explanation

==Error regarding marking requirements==

Hi. I just realized an error in this page. I wondered if I should go ahead and correct it - I might indeed do that later.

If you distribute or publicly perform an adaptation, you do not have to keep intact notices that refer to the license of the Work. That kind of requirement exists for a non-adapted work, but not for adaptation. The explanation on this page says that the requirement exist for adaptation, citing 4(b).

If you read 4(b) of CC-BY 3.0 Unported [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode], or CC-BY 3.0 US [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode], you can see that the requirement is not there.

--[[User:Tomo|Tomo]] 15:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

4.0/Sandbox

2011-12-25T14:52:28Z

Tomo: /* Other issues for 4.0 */

4.0/Sandbox

2011-12-25T14:46:35Z

Tomo: /* Other issues for 4.0 */ conflict with ToU

4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-25T13:57:52Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */ adding a few more proposals

4.0/Sandbox

2011-12-25T04:39:31Z

Tomo: /* Other issues for 4.0 */ termination criteria

4.0/Technical protection measures

2011-12-24T18:00:09Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for 4.0 */ add a link to Version_3#DRM.

{{4.0 Issue}}

In Version 3.0, there is TPM language in [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(a)] and similar in 4(b) in the SA licenses:
:::You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.
This has been controversial for a long time, potentially unnecessarily (and paradoxically, given anti-DRM clause meant to protect) limiting users' freedoms and complicating use of CC-licensed material in widely used platforms that have DRM built in. The addition of a "parallel distribution" (of non-TPM version) was discussed for [[Version 3#DRM]], but decided against.

Some think a more elegant, freedom-compatible approach is to be found in GPLv3:
:::3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
:::
:::''No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.''
:::
:::''When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.''
See [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm explanation] and summary of some discussions leading to this clause in the GPL [https://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3 here].

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

'''''TPM Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Drop prohibition of effective technical protection measures, add permission to circumvent, possibly using GPLv3's well vetted language as closely as possible.'''
* Pros: Compared to parallel distribution obligation, or any other that requires proactive step, this type of clause makes license compliance easier.
* Cons: Some, if not many, TPMs are simply not easy to circumvent for lay people. Circumvention is difficult when sales of devices for circumvention is legally prohibited. (In Japan, such sales, manufacturing, and other acts related to circmvention device are a crime punishable up to 3 years in prison, etc., according to [http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl8.html#cl7+A120bis Art.120bis] of Japanese copyright law). Under this kind of legal circumstance, the permission may become not very effective.
* Other comments: Art.3 of [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv3] "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law." is presumably what this proposal is referring to.
** Strictly speaking, prohibition of effective TPM is not mutually exclusive of permission of circumvention. For example, a video game program under this license could be technically protected by a TPM, but the license would allow circumvention, and the license could still prohibit any TPM for any copy or redistribution of the work.

'''''TPM Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Allow parallel distribution in place of total TPM prohibition.'''
* Pros: Allow copying of a digital image under CC-BY into a TV program. CC Japan receives inquiries about this type of usage monthly, if not more frequently. But all terrestrial digital TV broadcasting is protected by a TPM so one of the points in our answers is "you cannot use the image without creating adaptation, (or find a way not to impose TPM for the segment)" When the image is CC-BY-ND, it is impossible to comply.
* Cons: It was received negatively by CC's affilate teams around the world. Please see [[Version_3#DRM]].
** One might characterize this as a problematic compromise in the fight for freedom/ against DRMs.
* Other comments: This conflict between the anti-TPM clause and digital TV was raised in 2008 Summit's Legal Day. At the time, the problem was expected but somewhat theoretical. Now that all terrestrial TV broadcasting became digital-only for most of Japan, it is real. Some at the time pointed out that TPM would not be sustainable so we could simply wait and the TPM would disappear. That prediction is not right so far.
** I heard from an industry source that not imposing a TPM for Japanese terrestrial broadcasting is technically possible, but practically impossible.

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

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

4.0/Technical protection measures

2011-12-24T17:55:46Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for 4.0 */ add ref. to Jp copyright law re circumvention

{{4.0 Issue}}

In Version 3.0, there is TPM language in [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(a)] and similar in 4(b) in the SA licenses:
:::You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.
This has been controversial for a long time, potentially unnecessarily (and paradoxically, given anti-DRM clause meant to protect) limiting users' freedoms and complicating use of CC-licensed material in widely used platforms that have DRM built in. The addition of a "parallel distribution" (of non-TPM version) was discussed for [[Version 3#DRM]], but decided against.

Some think a more elegant, freedom-compatible approach is to be found in GPLv3:
:::3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
:::
:::''No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.''
:::
:::''When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.''
See [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm explanation] and summary of some discussions leading to this clause in the GPL [https://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3 here].

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

'''''TPM Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Drop prohibition of effective technical protection measures, add permission to circumvent, possibly using GPLv3's well vetted language as closely as possible.'''
* Pros: Compared to parallel distribution obligation, or any other that requires proactive step, this type of clause makes license compliance easier.
* Cons: Some, if not many, TPMs are simply not easy to circumvent for lay people. Circumvention is difficult when sales of devices for circumvention is legally prohibited. (In Japan, such sales, manufacturing, and other acts related to circmvention device are a crime punishable up to 3 years in prison, etc., according to [http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl8.html#cl7+A120bis Art.120bis] of Japanese copyright law). Under this kind of legal circumstance, the permission may become not very effective.
* Other comments: Art.3 of [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv3] "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law." is presumably what this proposal is referring to.
** Strictly speaking, prohibition of effective TPM is not mutually exclusive of permission of circumvention. For example, a video game program under this license could be technically protected by a TPM, but the license would allow circumvention, and the license could still prohibit any TPM for any copy or redistribution of the work.

'''''TPM Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Allow parallel distribution in place of total TPM prohibition.'''
* Pros: Allow copying of a digital image under CC-BY into a TV program. CC Japan receives inquiries about this type of usage monthly, if not more frequently. But all terrestrial digital TV broadcasting is protected by a TPM so one of the points in our answers is "you cannot use the image without creating adaptation, (or find a way not to impose TPM for the segment)" When the image is CC-BY-ND, it is impossible to comply.
* Cons: I think during v.3 discussion, parallel distribution clause was said to be difficult for licensees to understand, and one more non-simple thing to explain.
** One might characterize this as a problematic compromise in the fight for freedom/ against DRMs.
* Other comments: This conflict between the anti-TPM clause and digital TV was raised in 2008 Summit's Legal Day. At the time, the problem was expected but somewhat theoretical. Now that all terrestrial TV broadcasting became digital-only for most of Japan, it is real. Some at the time pointed out that TPM would not be sustainable so we could simply wait and the TPM would disappear. That prediction is not right so far.
** I heard from an industry source that not imposing a TPM for Japanese terrestrial broadcasting is technically possible, but practically impossible.

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

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

4.0/Technical protection measures

2011-12-24T17:39:21Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for 4.0 */ comment on #1, adding #2 (para. distr. clause)

{{4.0 Issue}}

In Version 3.0, there is TPM language in [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(a)] and similar in 4(b) in the SA licenses:
:::You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.
This has been controversial for a long time, potentially unnecessarily (and paradoxically, given anti-DRM clause meant to protect) limiting users' freedoms and complicating use of CC-licensed material in widely used platforms that have DRM built in. The addition of a "parallel distribution" (of non-TPM version) was discussed for [[Version 3#DRM]], but decided against.

Some think a more elegant, freedom-compatible approach is to be found in GPLv3:
:::3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
:::
:::''No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.''
:::
:::''When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.''
See [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm explanation] and summary of some discussions leading to this clause in the GPL [https://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3 here].

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

'''''TPM Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Drop prohibition of effective technical protection measures, add permission to circumvent, possibly using GPLv3's well vetted language as closely as possible.'''
* Pros: Compared to parallel distribution obligation, or any other that requires proactive step, this type of clause makes license compliance easier.
* Cons: Some, if not many, TPMs are simply not easy to circumvent for lay people. Circumvention is difficult when sales of devices for circumvention is legally prohibited. Under those circumstances, the permission becomes not very effective.
* Other comments: Art.3 of [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv3] "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law." is presumably what this proposal is referring to.
** Strictly speaking, prohibition of effective TPM is not mutually exclusive of permission of circumvention. For example, a video game program under this license could be technically protected by a TPM, but the license would allow circumvention, and the license could still prohibit any TPM for any copy or redistribution of the work.

'''''TPM Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Allow parallel distribution in place of total TPM prohibition.'''
* Pros: Allow copying of a digital image under CC-BY into a TV program. CC Japan receives inquiries about this type of usage monthly, if not more frequently. But all terrestrial digital TV broadcasting is protected by a TPM so one of the points in our answers is "you cannot use the image without creating adaptation, (or find a way not to impose TPM for the segment)" When the image is CC-BY-ND, it is impossible to comply.
* Cons: I think during v.3 discussion, parallel distribution clause was said to be difficult for licensees to understand, and one more non-simple thing to explain.
** One might characterize this as a problematic compromise in the fight for freedom/ against DRMs.
* Other comments: This conflict between the anti-TPM clause and digital TV was raised in 2008 Summit's Legal Day. At the time, the problem was expected but somewhat theoretical. Now that all terrestrial TV broadcasting became digital-only for most of Japan, it is real. Some at the time pointed out that TPM would not be sustainable so we could simply wait and the TPM would disappear. That prediction is not right so far.
** I heard from an industry source that not imposing a TPM for Japanese terrestrial broadcasting is technically possible, but practically impossible.

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

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

User:Tomo

2011-12-22T20:10:05Z

Tomo: adding my name

My name is Tomoaki Watanabe. I am something like an Executive Director at CC Japan, and an occasional Wikipedian.
I am here mainly to update about CC Japan, CC in Japan, and translate some documents.

4.0/Attribution and marking

2011-12-22T18:41:24Z

Tomo: /* Proposals for attribution in 4.0 */ some proposals

User:Tomo

2011-12-22T17:10:20Z

Tomo:

I am something like an Executive Director at CC Japan, and an occasional Wikipedian.
I am here mainly to update about CC Japan, CC in Japan, and translate some documents.

User:Tomo

2011-11-19T15:04:01Z

Tomo: just trying to see if this works.

I am a member of CC Japan and an occasional Wikipedian.
I am here mainly to update about CC Japan, CC in Japan, and translate some documents.

User:Tomo

2010-12-15T11:40:18Z

Tomo: minimal descriptions about me

I am a member of CC Japan and an occasional Wikipedian.
I am here mainly to translate some documents.

Ja:Flickr/Publish

2010-12-15T11:40:04Z

Tomo: trying to create a page for now