Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sarah Pearson <sarah AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: melanie dulong <melanie.ddr AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Jay Yoon <iwillbe99 AT gmail.com>, Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambia <lion05 AT mac.com>, "cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org>, "hala.essalmawi AT gmail.com" <hala.essalmawi AT gmail.com>
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:36:45 -0800

Hi all,

First, to respond to Melanie's request for more time to review, that is fine. We realize there is a lot to digest here, and we very much appreciate your time. If you can get us comments by Wednesday (30 January) that would be very useful. We are hoping to publish the draft on Friday the 1st. If that timeline does not work for you, please let us know.

Federico, I think your scenario is consistent with how we envision it should work. Provided there is some extraction and reuse of the contents of the licensed database in another database subject to SGDRs, then ShareAlike would be triggered. But as you pointed out, ShareAlike would not apply to the pictures within the database in your example.

Thomas, I think you make an interesting point that perhaps it is implied that ShareAlike does not apply to the contents of the database because the database itself is an independent work. I think there are a couple of reasons why that is not necessarily the case here though. (1) This definition of what constitutes Adapted Material of a database subject to SGDRs is a concept we created artificially within the license, so it's not clear that the Directive would be the basis or reference point for determining the boundaries of the definition. (2) The default when a CC license is applied to a database is that the license applies to both the database structure and its contents unless otherwise indicated. In light of that, licensees may assume that same concept applies to their own databases when they qualify as "Adapted Material." (3) The language in the ShareAlike condition tells licensees they must release all of their Copyright and Similar Rights in the Adapted Material under BY-SA. If the Adapted Material is a database pursuant to that particular clause referenced above, then I think one could easily be led to believe the ShareAlike obligation applies to the database and everything in it. As you said in your email, it is at least possible that the average user would not understand the distinction between the rights in the database structure and its contents.

Now it is my turn to apologize for the long email!

best,
Sarah

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:06 AM, melanie dulong <melanie.ddr AT gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
It is likely that I will share the views of Lucie and Thomas, but could it be possible to have more than 2 working days to study the issue?
Thanks,
Melanie

Le vendredi 25 janvier 2013, T. Margoni a écrit :

Great example Federico!

I think our "not sure what exactly it means" coincides.

My understanding of what the whole issue (as explained by Sarah, and
also as explained in the original document) is along the lines of your
example. Copyright in the structure under SA, SGDR under SA, copyright
in the elements constituting the db, not under SA obligation.

But IF this is the result that we want to achieve, then I do not think
that our last sentence is a) necessary or b) clear (it could survive
rephrased as "for the avoidance of doubts", though).

The database directive is clear in identifying 3 layers of protection:

1) copyright in the selection/arrangement of content if author's own
intellectual creation (art. 3,1)

2) SGDR in the qualitative/quantitative substantial investment in
obtaining/verification/presentation of contents (art. 7,1)

3) Other rights (and for our case most importantly copyright/related
rights) in the content itself, which are left untouched by either 1) or
2), see arts. 3,2 and 7,4).

In light of that, if we license a db that is protected, say, by
copyright and SGDR, we are licensing only the work database, and not the
works eventually constituting the db, represented in Federico's examples
by the pictures, and the main reason is because we are in presence of
different and independent works/materials. Those pictures, are not bound
by SA, nor need to be under a CC (although issues regarding their
re-usability can emerge). GPL's copyleft provisions should operate quite
similarly.

Now, IF we agree that this is the part on which we all have doubts on,
and Sarah confirms that this is the intended meaning of that last
clause, then I suggest rewording, eventually even outside the license. I
say this because, what we described is the normal operation of the db
protection (copyright+SGDR), without the need of a specific clause. I do
agree though, that this might be a bit, a lot confusing especially to
users, therefore it needs to be addressed with clarity.

Sorry for the long email.

Best regards,

thomas


On 2013-01-25 9:25 AM, Federico Morando wrote:
> Hi Sarah,
>
> first of all, let's me say that I share Thomas' and Lucie's comments
> about the last draft: it's indeed a very nice and clear document. But I
> also shared their question about the last sentence in the definition of
> Adapted Material.
>
> On 01/25/2013 03:02 AM, Sarah Pearson wrote:
>> - If a licensee in the EU extracts and reuses a substantial portion of
>> the contents of a BY-SA licensed database in her own database in which
>> she has SGDRs, she is required under ShareAlike to license her own
>> SGDRs and her copyright (if any) in the database structure under
>> BY-SA. She is _not_ required to license the contents of her database
>> under BY-SA.
>
> Following the license and your example, am I correct if I say that
> somebody could take the BY-SA-licensed database A (let's say a dump of
> dbPedia), add to it a set of links to pictures and the pictures
> themselves, publishing the derived (and arguably sui generis right
> protected) database B (for instance creating a website which is an
> enriched version of dbPedia with new pictures) under a BY-SA license,
> but keeping a proprietary license for the pictures themselves (while the
> links to the pictures are arguably licensed under BY-SA)?
> [Notice that there should be no copyright protection on database B,
> unless we argue that the creativity of the choice of these pictures is
> sufficient to trigger copyright protection for the database... but this
> would be strange and I suggest to assume that only SGDR applies to B.]
>
> (I'm not saying whether this is good or bad; I just wanted to share this
> scenario, verify if it's correct according to the intended meaning of
> the license and elicit further comments.)
>
> Best,
>
> Federico
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CC-Europe mailing list
> CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe
>

--
Dr. Thomas Margoni
Institute for Information Law (IViR) - Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam - The Netherlands
http://ssrn.com/author=1383303
_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe

_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page