[OSM-legal-talk] [cc-community] CC-BY, does the anti-TPM clause apply to adaptations?

Sarah Pearson sarah at creativecommons.org
Fri Jan 25 01:15:58 GMT 2013


"So long as a licensee appropriately attributes the BY-NC licensor when
they share their adaptation, they may apply CC-BY-SA (or any other license)
to their copyright in the adaptation" --  this is true but, because the
original work may only be used for NC purposes, the BY-SA license would
have limited value. If the original is incorporated into a truly adapted
work, the whole work can only be used for NC purposes.

This scenario points to the disconnect between what is legally allowed
under the licenses and what makes sense as a practical matter when it comes
to compatibility. The question of whether to close that gap in version 4.0
of CC licenses is something we expect to be debated in the upcoming public
comment period.

Also, I should note that CC cannot speak for the stewards of the ODbL and
other public licenses as to how they interpret their licenses and what is
compatible with them.

Sarah

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> By this argument CC-BY-NC is compatible with CC-BY-SA, since CC-NC 1)
> allows you to create adaptations, and 2) does not dictate that you
> license your rights to an adaptation under particular terms and
> conditions.  So long as a licensee appropriately attributes the BY-NC
> licensor when they share their adaptation, they may apply CC-BY-SA (or
> any other license) to their copyright in the adaptation.
>
> ODbL, like CC-BY-SA, is a (weak) copyleft license.
>
> Anthony
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Sarah Pearson
> <sarah at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > Thanks for raising this question. The short answer is no, we do not
> think CC
> > BY is incompatible with the ODbL. People can remix BY-licensed databases
> and
> > license them under the ODbL.
> >
> > The reason why we think they are compatible requires a bit of a longer
> > answer. First, we should explain how we think about compatibility. A
> license
> > is compatible with another license if you can take work licensed under
> the
> > first license, adapt it, and then license the rights you have in the
> > adaptation under the second license. As a legal matter, this is allowed
> as
> > long as the first license: (1) allows you to create adaptations, and (2)
> > does not dictate that you license your rights to an adaptation under
> > particular terms and conditions. CC BY v3 meets both of these
> conditions. So
> > long as a licensee appropriately attributes the BY licensor when they
> share
> > their adaptation, they may apply the ODbL (or any other license) to their
> > copyright in the adaptation.
> >
> > As a practical matter, compatibility is slightly more complicated
> because of
> > the concept I explained in my prior email on this thread: an adaptation
> is
> > always subject to two copyrights. When those copyrights are licensed on
> > different terms, it can be difficult for those using the adaptation to
> sort
> > out their obligations. In this context, someone using the ODbL-licensed
> > adaptation would have to comply with both the ODbL and CC BY (to the
> extent
> > they make a use of the adaptation that implicates both copyrights).
> >
> > The TPM restriction in CC BY does not complicate reuse from this
> > perspective. Although the ODbL permits application of TPMs if a free
> version
> > is distributed in parallel, it by no means requires application of TPMs.
> > Therefore, it would be easy to comply with both licenses by simply not
> > applying TPMs to the adaptation.
> >
> > You also asked whether the new clause in the current working language of
> > Version 4.0 about how to license adaptations of BY-licensed works changes
> > anything. The answer to that question is no, the clause only makes
> explicit
> > what I have explained above. The license applied to the adaptation must
> be
> > one that allows someone using the adaptation to simultaneously comply
> with
> > CC BY.
> >
> > This email only scratches the surface of all of the interesting and
> > complicated issues relating to compatibility. We are in the process of
> > developing a more in-depth explanation of these issues. Please look for
> more
> > on that in the near future.
> >
> > best,
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > Sarah Hinchliff Pearson, Senior Counsel
> > Creative Commons
> > 444 Castro Street, Suite 900
> > Mountain View, California 94041
> > skype: sarah-h-pearson
> > email: sarah at creativecommons.org
> > ______________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given the TPM restriction, is CC able to definitely state that CC-BY
> >> is not compatible with ODbL (as in, a derivative database of a CC-BY
> >> database cannot be licensed under ODbL)?
> >>
> >> Does the new rule about adaptations alter that at all?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Sarah Pearson
> >> <sarah at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> >> > Happy new year! Over the past month or so, we have been working on
> >> > refining
> >> > draft 3 of Version 4.0, and we plan to publish it shortly. In the
> >> > meantime,
> >> > we wanted to follow up on this particular thread about the reach of
> the
> >> > TPM
> >> > restriction because it touches on a lot of complicated issues relating
> >> > to
> >> > the licenses. Most importantly, it hinges on what happens to the
> >> > original
> >> > work when an adaptation is created. We have done a lot of thinking
> about
> >> > these issues over the last several weeks as we endeavored to make the
> >> > concepts more clear in Version 4.0.
> >> >
> >> > The starting point to answer this question is a fundamental concept
> >> > about
> >> > how adaptations work under copyright law. That is, the rights in an
> >> > adaptation never touch the rights to the original from which it is
> >> > derived.[1] That means an adaptation is always subject to two
> >> > copyrights: in
> >> > the CC license context, one copyright is held by the adapter with
> >> > respect to
> >> > the new contributions, and one is held by the original licensor with
> >> > respect
> >> > to the original.
> >> >
> >> > This helps to answer the question about the TPM restriction because it
> >> > demonstrates how adaptations necessarily include the licensed work.
> >> > Therefore, if you are not allowed to lock down the licensed work by
> >> > applying
> >> > TPMs, by default you are not allowed to lock down an adaptation by
> >> > applying
> >> > TPMs, at least to the extent the TPMs restrict access to the original
> >> > licensed work.
> >> >
> >> > This same concept applies to all obligations in the licenses that
> apply
> >> > to
> >> > the licensed work, including the provision dictating that the CC
> license
> >> > always follows the original work, offering a new license to downstream
> >> > recipients when licensees share the work, and to the provision
> >> > prohibiting
> >> > licensees from imposing new legal terms or conditions upon the
> original
> >> > work. Because adaptations necessarily include the licensed work,
> >> > downstream
> >> > recipients of adaptations get access to the original work under the
> >> > original
> >> > CC license without any new terms and conditions imposed by the
> licensee.
> >> >
> >> > This might start to sound a bit like ShareAlike, but there is an
> >> > important
> >> > difference, and it relates to the fundamental concept explained above:
> >> > there
> >> > are always at least two copyrights in an adaptation. With that in
> mind,
> >> > under the ShareAlike licenses, licensees are required to share their
> own
> >> > rights in the adaptation under identical terms and conditions. In the
> >> > non-ShareAlike licenses, licensees are free to share their own rights
> in
> >> > an
> >> > adaptation on any terms, even though the original CC license always
> >> > follows
> >> > the adaptation with respect to the original work.
> >> >
> >> > In the upcoming draft of Version 4.0, we have made an important change
> >> > to
> >> > the above concepts. We have included a limited rule as to how
> >> > adaptations of
> >> > non-ShareAlike licenses must be licensed. The rule, which will be
> >> > included
> >> > only in CC BY and CC BY-NC, states that adaptations may be licensed on
> >> > any
> >> > terms, so long as people using the adaptation are able to comply
> >> > simultaneously with those terms and the original CC license (since
> both
> >> > licenses apply).[2] This ensures that licensees are not releasing
> their
> >> > rights to adaptations in a way that would make it impossible for
> >> > downstream
> >> > recipients to reuse the adaptation as a whole.
> >> >
> >> > Another important change in this upcoming draft of 4.0 relates to
> TPMs.
> >> > Licensors have always had the ability to apply TPMs to their own works
> >> > (even
> >> > though doing so frustrates the purpose of the license because it makes
> >> > it
> >> > difficult for licensees to exercise their rights). In the new draft,
> we
> >> > have
> >> > included express permission to circumvent any TPMs that are applied by
> >> > licensors.[3]
> >> >
> >> > We look forward to hearing from you on these and other important
> >> > proposed
> >> > changes to the licenses during the upcoming public comment period.
> >> >
> >> > best,
> >> > Sarah
> >> >
> >> > FNs:
> >> > [1] 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)
> >> >
> >> > [2] The current working language for d3 is: “You may release Your
> >> > Copyright
> >> > and Similar Rights in the Adapted Material on any terms and conditions
> >> > provided users of the Adapted Material are able to simultaneously
> >> > satisfy
> >> > those terms and conditions and this Public License.”
> >> >
> >> > [3] The current working language for d3 is: “ You are authorized to
> >> > exercise
> >> > the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or
> >> > hereafter
> >> > created, and You are authorized to make technical modifications
> >> > necessary to
> >> > do so.  The Licensor waives or agrees not to assert any right or
> >> > authority
> >> > that the Licensor may have to forbid You from making such technical
> >> > modifications, including modifications necessary to circumvent
> effective
> >> > technological measures applied by the Licensor ”
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sarah Hinchliff Pearson, Senior Counsel
> >> > Creative Commons
> >> > 444 Castro Street, Suite 900
> >> > Mountain View, California 94041
> >> > skype: sarah-h-pearson
> >> > email: sarah at creativecommons.org
> >> > ______________________________
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, 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."
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this apply to Adaptations as well, or does it only apply to the
> >> >> original Work?  Assume the Adaptation is not released under CC-BY.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this answer change in 4.0?
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> List info and archives at
> >> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >> >> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > List info and archives at
> >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >> > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20130124/5611848d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list