[cc-community] Being called a thief for using CC

Javier Candeira javier at candeira.com
Mon Feb 18 04:14:25 EST 2008

Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Anyhoo: a Licensor can specify a URI to link to, but if it's not a
> "copyright notice", you're not obligated to link to it. So, no, it's not
> a reasonable request. Requiring that all the authors be credited is
> reasonable, but requiring a particular link to be used is not -- unless
> the link is to copyright or licensing info.

Thanks for the correction, but I still think that requiring this type of
link follows both the spirit and the letter of the license.

If an author decides that the posts that compose a blog are, each one,
individual works, and each one contains its own copyright notice, I think
requiring that the derivative work of each post link to each post follows
the license:

> (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if
>                 any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the
>                 Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright
>                 notice or licensing information for the Work;

[Note that the Spanish license says, as one could expect, substantively the
same thing: "de manera razonable, el Identificador Uniforme de Recurso
(URI), si existe, que el licenciador especifica para ser vinculado a la
obra, a menos que tal URI no se refiera al aviso sobre propiedad intelectual
o a la información sobre la licencia de la obra;"]

As I see it, a licensor can ask for a different URI for each post, as long
as the URI refers to the copyright notice or licensing information for the
work. The document at that URI doesn't have to *be* the copyright notice
*and nothing else*, it only has to *contain* the copyright information for
the work.

I think this is the case for observatorio.org, but also for any other blog
or piecemeal website where each individual page is considered an individual
works, and there is a per-page notice like this:

"This page (C) 2008 its author(s). Copying permitted under <cc.org/blah>this
CC license<> Please attributio your copy/derivative work, where the medium
reasonably allows it, via a link pointing to this individual page. Thanks!"

You can hardly say the URI for a page with such footer "does not refer to
the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work", irregardles of
whether the page contains the work itself *as well*.

My reading may be wrong, and yours right, I't just seems to me the license
is designed so you can't request a link to a wildly different URI. The best
example of a bad URI I can think of is posts in popularsite.com under a CC
license requesting attribution via licensee links to vanity personal
homepage authorsname.info.

[Conclusion]: Requesting attribution via a link to the URI of the document
where the work is published is allowed, as long as that URI contains not
only the Work, but also its copyright and/or licensing info. If it does,
licensees have the obligation to link to that URI, where practicable.


Javier Candeira

More information about the cc-community mailing list