4.0/License subject matter - Revision history

Kat Walsh: more past-tensing

2013-12-09T19:10:37Z

more past-tensing

CCID-diane peters at 19:13, 11 September 2013

2013-09-11T19:13:13Z

CCID-shinchpearson at 17:17, 10 September 2013

2013-09-10T17:17:25Z

Kat Walsh: fmt

2013-05-20T19:13:05Z

fmt

CCID-shinchpearson at 20:16, 14 February 2013

2013-02-14T20:16:36Z

Kat Walsh: +draft 3

2013-02-14T04:48:49Z

+draft 3

Aurelia Schultz: /* Proposals for addressing SGDRs in 4.0 */

2012-10-09T17:46:46Z

‎Proposals for addressing SGDRs in 4.0

Aurelia Schultz at 17:49, 1 August 2012

2012-08-01T17:49:12Z

CCID-diane peters at 03:30, 1 August 2012

2012-08-01T03:30:48Z

Aurelia Schultz at 21:16, 31 July 2012

2012-07-31T21:16:38Z

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Creative Commons licenses were designed as copyright licenses, granting permissions to make uses of works that implicate copyright and neighboring rights upon certain conditions. The licenses were also designed to avoid imposing conditions on reuse where permissions are not otherwise required by applicable law.
-This page is designed to address discussion topics related to the scope of the international license. In particular:
+This page was designed to address discussion topics related to the scope of the international license. In particular:
-*There are certain rights very similar to copyright that are not currently licensed (included in the scope of the international license) regardless of where the license operates. One such set of “copyright-like” rights not included in the scope of the international license are sui generis database rights (SGDRs), and there may be others that do not fall within the current definition of work in version 3.0.
+*There are certain rights very similar to copyright that were not licensed (were not included in the scope of the international license) in versions 3.0 and prior, regardless of where the license operates. One such set of “copyright-like” rights not previously included in the scope of the international license are sui generis database rights (SGDRs).
 *The precise scope of the rights granted in the international license varies depending on the copyright law of the jurisdiction where the license is operating – a form of automatic localization of the license. Accordingly, the scope of the “work” being licensed varies depending on how it is defined under applicable copyright law. </div>

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 {{Infobox|
 ===Draft 4===
-The scope of the license has been revised slightly to be more consistent with Version 3.0. Although the Share and Copyright and Similar Rights definitions remain open-ended, the license grant itself now lists a finite set of permitted activities as with Version 3.0. The definition of Share has also been adjusted slightly for clarity.
+The scope of the license has been revised slightly to be more consistent with Version 3.0. Although the "Share" and "Copyright and Similar Rights" definitions remain open-ended, the license grant itself now lists a finite set of permitted activities as with Version 3.0. The definition of Share has also been adjusted slightly for clarity.
 }}

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 |}
-{{Infobox|
+{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
 ===Draft 3===
@@ Line 57: / Line 62: @@
 *We have made several changes with respect to the license of sui generis database rights. Those edits are explained in detail [[4.0/Sui generis database rights|here]].
 *We have also made a change relating to the basic operation of the license. For more information about this change, visit the [[4.0/Internationalization|Internationalization]] page.
-====Draft 3 update====
+{{Infobox|
+===Draft 4===
 }}
@@ Line 109: / Line 117: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Database included in Copyright-like Rights definition.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Created separate definition for Sui Generis Database Rights and made several changes to the treatment of those rights. More detail available on the [[4.0/Sui_generis_database_rights| Sui Generis Database Rights page]].
@@ Line 121: / Line 130: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same.
@@ Line 130: / Line 140: @@
 ** See more discussion on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006774.html this thread] from license-discuss.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same.
@@ Line 137: / Line 148: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposed after d.2 published.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Not adopted. We have included a separate definition for SGDRs but we have been careful to make it clear that those rights may not apply to all licensees.
@@ Line 188: / Line 200: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights term was removed. Current draft is silent on choice of law to allow principles of private international law to prevail.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Included a new interpretation provision explained in detail [[4.0/Internationalization| here]].
@@ Line 200: / Line 213: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Definition of Adaptation is further refined.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Definition of Adaptation further refined, but still intended to track applicable law.
@@ Line 210: / Line 224: @@
 *Other comments: See specific proposal on mailing list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006863.html here].
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Not adopted. Included a new interpretation provision explained in detail [[4.0/Internationalization| here]].

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{4.0 Issue}}
 <div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
-'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons licenses were designed as copyright licenses, granting permissions to make uses of works that implicate copyright and neighboring rights upon certain conditions. The licenses were also designed to avoid imposing conditions on reuse where permissions are not otherwise required by applicable law.
+Creative Commons licenses were designed as copyright licenses, granting permissions to make uses of works that implicate copyright and neighboring rights upon certain conditions. The licenses were also designed to avoid imposing conditions on reuse where permissions are not otherwise required by applicable law.
 This page is designed to address discussion topics related to the scope of the international license. In particular:
@@ Line 10: / Line 11: @@
 *The precise scope of the rights granted in the international license varies depending on the copyright law of the jurisdiction where the license is operating – a form of automatic localization of the license. Accordingly, the scope of the “work” being licensed varies depending on how it is defined under applicable copyright law. </div>
-{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' Clearly defining the scope of the license is challenging but critical.  We addressed three primary facets related to this issue in this first draft.
+==Treatment in drafts==
 *Defining the licensed rights: We opted to define the rights that are licensed (as distinguished from other rights that are being waived, described further below) in a limited manner. Specifically, the license covers copyright, and performance, broadcast, phonogram and database rights. (Note that moral rights, while a part of copyright and author’s rights, are carved out for special, more limited treatment. See below.)  We decided to handle moral rights and other similar or corresponding rights through a limited waiver (or non assert), though only when allowed.  Those rights are not licensed (See Section 2(b)(1)(ii)). Our reasons are several-fold:
 **For moral rights, we do not want to overreach and require greater waiver (where that is even possible and which the license anticipates may be the case) than is necessary.  Licensing them fully and on par with economic rights of authors may fail to recognize the importance these rights play in some localities and the difficulties (if not impossibilities) associated with licensing, waiving or otherwise affecting those rights.  See [[4.0/Moral_rights|here]] for more information on our reasoning for the current treatment of moral rights.
@@ Line 19: / Line 28: @@
 *Database rights: As noted from the start of the 4.0 process, we have chosen to license database rights on the same terms and conditions as copyright. We feel this is the best way to ensure that database rights are not a barrier to would-be licensors seeking to exercise those rights, or to those using of CC-licensed works, who might otherwise need to ask for separate permission to use the work as intended. We have also tried to make it very clear that database rights (as with all licensed rights) are only within the scope of the license if they are held by Licensor and apply to use of the licensed work by the licensee. This issue is discussed in further detail below.
 *Automatic localization: To make the scope of the license grant clear, we included a definition of Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights. This serves both to define the rights covered by the license grant and to give licensees clarity about what law applies to their use of CC-licensed works. Throughout the license, we have made clear that each use of the licensed work is only covered (that is, subject to the terms and conditions of the license) “to the extent permission is required under Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights” and to the extent Licensor is the holder of those rights.}}
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
 |valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
-'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' Our approach to the scope of the license has evolved.  This is largely in response to input from the community based on draft 1, though it was anticipated due to our intentional framing of the issue to provoke substantive input on expansion of license scope.
+===Draft 2===
 * The central change in 4.0d2 is the elimination of different treatment for copyright, which was '''''licensed''''' in 4.0d1, and those neighboring and other closely adjacent rights called “ancillary rights” in 4.0d1, which were '''''waived'''''.  We replace that 2-layer approach with a unified scheme of licensing copyright and copyright-like rights.  The benefit of this approach is fairly evident -- all rights affected by the license are licensed (other than those involving [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox#Collecting_societies collecting societies] and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Moral_rights moral rights]).  This language is also closer to that used in GNU GPL v3.0, though with the important difference that we are including a definition of “Copyright-like Rights”.  “Copyright-like Rights” are defined with reference to a non-exhaustive but an illustrative list of rights that encompass neighboring and other closely related rights.  While not every right by whatever name in every jurisdiction is specifically delineated, we believe the definition gives meaningful and important interpretative guidance to its intended scope.  We recognize this is not a perfect result, but we feel it a smart compromise given the desire to allow the license to operate as intended.  ''Note that we are specifically requesting [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2 feedback] (particularly calling on our affiliates in this regard) on what rights are not listed specifically but should be included, and plan to have affiliates specify the rights encompassed in their jurisdictions by virtue of that language.''
@@ Line 29: / Line 44: @@
 * During the public comment period on 4.0d2, we will be soliciting feedback about whether there are other types of rights that should be explicitly reserved by licensors, and whether it is feasible to safely reintroduce a stronger reservation of rights without undermining our goals.
 |}
-{{Infobox|'''Draft 3 treatment:'''
+{{Infobox|
 In this draft, the basic scope of the license -- copyright and copyright-like rights -- remains unchanged. However, we have made a few changes to address specific concerns raised during the last public comment period.
@@ Line 39: / Line 56: @@
 *To prevent a situation where a licensor uses her publicity rights to inhibit the exercise of licensed rights, we have changed the treatment of publicity and privacy rights held by the licensor. Those rights are now included within the limited waiver or non-assertion clause along with the licensor’s moral rights.  This proposal had been raised during the draft 2 discussion period and is one that we feel is important to include.
 *We have made several changes with respect to the license of sui generis database rights. Those edits are explained in detail [[4.0/Sui generis database rights|here]].
-*We have also made a change relating to the basic operation of the license. For more information about this change, visit the [[4.0/Internationalization|Internationalization]] page. }}
+*We have also made a change relating to the basic operation of the license. For more information about this change, visit the [[4.0/Internationalization|Internationalization]] page.
 == Defining the licensed rights ==

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 * '''Catalogue rights''' These rights are very similar to database rights and often overlap with them. Section 49 of the Finnish Copyright Act is one articulation of these rights. This issue was raised on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-February/006715.html license-discuss].
 * '''Semiconductor mask rights and design rights.'''  As suggested on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006827.html license-discuss].
 == Sui generis database rights (SGDRs)  ==
@@ Line 86: / Line 87: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated in draft by including database rights in Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights definition and adding reference to databases in license grant.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Database included in Copyright-like Rights definition.
 '''''SGDR Proposal No. 2:''''' (alternative proposal) '''License SGDRs and waive conditions.''' This would effectively put the unported license in line with the 3.0 EU ports with respect to SGDRs. The licenses would grant permission to use works implicating SGDRs (where SGDRs apply per applicable law only), but the license conditions (BY, NC, NC and/or SA, as applicable) would not apply to those uses unless copyright was also implicated.
@@ Line 96: / Line 99: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not adopted.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.
@@ Line 104: / Line 108: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Not adopted. One of the main reasons for the 4.0 version of CC licenses is to address the issue of rights holders who want to use CC licenses but can't because of the absence of addressing SGDRs.
 ** See more discussion on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006774.html this thread] from license-discuss.
@@ Line 110: / Line 115: @@
 * Cons: Makes the license less clear in what it is licensing.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Proposed after d.2 published.
 ==Automatic localization of the license==
@@ Line 159: / Line 166: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' The concepts of v. 3.0 Section 8(f) have been integrated into the newly-defined term, Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights. However, the definition does not currently mention Berne or other international treaties specifically (or national implementations thereof). Further input is welcome on whether other concepts from Section 8(f) in 3.0 need to be conveyed in the license or, alternatively, need not be contained in the license because they apply regardless (but could be explained separately).
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights term was removed. Current draft is silent on choice of law to allow principles of private international law to prevail.
@@ Line 170: / Line 178: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' In this draft, we have only identified certain types of uses that have been specified in 3.0 as being either an Adaptation/derivative, or not.  We encourage specific proposals for other use specific cases that would provide clarity and harmonization where rights systems may differ and where licensors and licensees seek clarity.  Keep in mind that for the SA licenses, modifications that constitute Adaptations trigger the SA condition.  Any new proposal for contracting Adaptations (or not) will be scrutinized carefully.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Definition of Adaptation is further refined.
@@ Line 179: / Line 188: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:'''
 *Other comments: See specific proposal on mailing list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006863.html here].

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 '''Draft 2 Treatment:''' Our approach to the scope of the license has evolved.  This is largely in response to input from the community based on draft 1, though it was anticipated due to our intentional framing of the issue to provoke substantive input on expansion of license scope.
-The core change in 4.0d2 is the elimination of different treatment for copyright, which was '''''licensed''''' in 4.0d1, and those neighboring and other closely adjacent rights called “ancillary rights” in 4.0d1, which were '''''waived'''''.  We replace that 2-layer approach with a unified scheme of licensing copyright and copyright-like rights.  The benefit of this approach is fairly evident -- all rights affected by the license are licensed (other than those involving [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox#Collecting_societies collecting societies] and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Moral_rights moral rights], see [link]).  This language is also closer to that used in GNU GPL v3.0, though with the important difference that we are including a definition of “Copyright-like Rights”.  “Copyright-like Rights” are defined with reference to a non-exhaustive but an illustrative list of rights that encompass neighboring and other closely related rights.  While not every right by whatever name in every jurisdiction is specifically delineated, we believe the definition gives meaningful and important interpretative guidance to its intended scope.  We recognize this is not a perfect result, but we feel it a smart compromise given the desire to allow the license to operate as intended.  ''Note that we are specifically requesting [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2 feedback] (particularly calling on our affiliates in this regard) on what rights are not listed specifically but should be included, and plan to have affiliates specify the rights encompassed in their jurisdictions by virtue of that language.''
+* The central change in 4.0d2 is the elimination of different treatment for copyright, which was '''''licensed''''' in 4.0d1, and those neighboring and other closely adjacent rights called “ancillary rights” in 4.0d1, which were '''''waived'''''.  We replace that 2-layer approach with a unified scheme of licensing copyright and copyright-like rights.  The benefit of this approach is fairly evident -- all rights affected by the license are licensed (other than those involving [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox#Collecting_societies collecting societies] and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Moral_rights moral rights]).  This language is also closer to that used in GNU GPL v3.0, though with the important difference that we are including a definition of “Copyright-like Rights”.  “Copyright-like Rights” are defined with reference to a non-exhaustive but an illustrative list of rights that encompass neighboring and other closely related rights.  While not every right by whatever name in every jurisdiction is specifically delineated, we believe the definition gives meaningful and important interpretative guidance to its intended scope.  We recognize this is not a perfect result, but we feel it a smart compromise given the desire to allow the license to operate as intended.  ''Note that we are specifically requesting [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_2 feedback] (particularly calling on our affiliates in this regard) on what rights are not listed specifically but should be included, and plan to have affiliates specify the rights encompassed in their jurisdictions by virtue of that language.''
-We have also removed from 4.0d2 the express reservation of all rights not specifically granted.  We feel that including such that strong provision could prevent the non-exclusive rights found in the definition of Copyright-like Rights from being interpreted as intended.  We are concerned about the case where a right traditionally thought of as neighboring copyright in one region or jurisdiction is somehow deemed outside the license grant in another jurisdiction for no reason other than its label or name.  Having a strongly stated reservation of all rights not explicitly granted could create the unintended consequence of not providing the interpretative flexibility needed to give licensees permissions they expected to have.
+* We have also removed from 4.0d2 the express reservation of all rights not specifically granted.  We feel that including such that strong provision could prevent the non-exclusive rights found in the definition of Copyright-like Rights from being interpreted as intended.  We are concerned about the case where a right traditionally thought of as neighboring copyright in one region or jurisdiction is somehow deemed outside the license grant in another jurisdiction for no reason other than its label or name.  Having a strongly stated reservation of all rights not explicitly granted could create the unintended consequence of not providing the interpretative flexibility needed to give licensees permissions they expected to have.  This is not to say that the license is without boundary--to the contrary.  The existence of a definition and illustrative examples serves as important limitations, and the inclusion of the traditional provision identifying patent, trademark, publicity, and privacy rights serves the same function.
-This is not to say that the license is without boundary--to the contrary.  The existence of a definition and illustrative examples serves as one important backstop, and the inclusion of the traditional provision identifying patent, trademark, publicity, and privacy rights serves as a second.   During the public comment period, we will be soliciting feedback about whether there are other types of rights that should be explicitly reserved by licensors, and whether it is feasible to safely reintroduce a stronger reservation of rights without undermining our goals.
+* During the public comment period on 4.0d2, we will be soliciting feedback about whether there are other types of rights that should be explicitly reserved by licensors, and whether it is feasible to safely reintroduce a stronger reservation of rights without undermining our goals.
 |}

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
 |valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;"|
-'''Draft 2 Treatement:'''
+'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' Our approach to the scope of the license has evolved.  This is largely in response to input from the community based on draft 1, though it was anticipated due to our intentional framing of the issue to provoke substantive input on expansion of license scope.
 |}
@@ Line 69: / Line 75: @@
 *Other comments:
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Incorporated in draft by including database rights in Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights definition and adding reference to databases in license grant.
+* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Database included in Copyright-like Rights definition.
 '''''SGDR Proposal No. 2:''''' (alternative proposal) '''License SGDRs and waive conditions.''' This would effectively put the unported license in line with the 3.0 EU ports with respect to SGDRs. The licenses would grant permission to use works implicating SGDRs (where SGDRs apply per applicable law only), but the license conditions (BY, NC, NC and/or SA, as applicable) would not apply to those uses unless copyright was also implicated.
@@ Line 79: / Line 85: @@
 *Other comments:
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' Not adopted.
@@ Line 85: / Line 92: @@
 * Cons: Can prevent CC licenses from being used for creative works that include data.
 * Other comments:
 ** See more discussion on [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006774.html this thread] from license-discuss.
 ==Automatic localization of the license==
@@ Line 135: / Line 142: @@
 ** Option 3: some version of option #1 that includes more clarifying provisions that explicitly supplement or override applicable law with respect to definitions that are particularly critical to the operation of the license
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' The concepts of v. 3.0 Section 8(f) have been integrated into the newly-defined term, Applicable Copyright and Neighboring Rights. However, the definition does not currently mention Berne or other international treaties specifically (or national implementations thereof). Further input is welcome on whether other concepts from Section 8(f) in 3.0 need to be conveyed in the license or, alternatively, need not be contained in the license because they apply regardless (but could be explained separately).
@@ Line 145: / Line 153: @@
 *Other comments: This does not mean that the license makes pretense that these clarifications are complete; it should continue to refer to local law, but specify more cases to achieve safe re-usability. This will be a long term process, one that started in previous versions and should not be reversed by removing clarifications. CC is in a unique advantageous position if it calls upon the experiences of porting into local jurisdictions and tries to fix as many ambiguous or differing positions. Basing CC 3 on the Berne Convention was a major positive step. Adding as many clarifications as possible to CC 4 could be another step.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.1:''' In this draft, we have only identified certain types of uses that have been specified in 3.0 as being either an Adaptation/derivative, or not.  We encourage specific proposals for other use specific cases that would provide clarity and harmonization where rights systems may differ and where licensors and licensees seek clarity.  Keep in mind that for the SA licenses, modifications that constitute Adaptations trigger the SA condition.  Any new proposal for contracting Adaptations (or not) will be scrutinized carefully.
@@ Line 152: / Line 161: @@
 *Cons:
 ** Potentially unfair to licensees on the other side of the world.
 *Other comments: See specific proposal on mailing list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006863.html here].