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: "Guibault, Lucie" <L.Guibault AT uva.nl>
  • To: 'Sarah Pearson' <sarah AT creativecommons.org>, 'Federico Morando' <federico.morando AT polito.it>
  • Cc: "'cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org'" <cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:58:52 +0000

Dear Sarah, dear all,

 

Please let me react in line with previous comments:

1) A licensor applies BY-SA to a database, in which case it is assumed the license applies to any rights the licensor has in the database structure (copyright and/or SGDRs) and any rights he or she has in the database contents.

2) A licensee extracts and reuses a substantial portion of a BY-SA-licensed database in his own separate database in which he has SGDRs, in which case the obligation to ShareAlike only extends to the rights he has in the database structure (copyright and/or SGDRs).

Scenario # 1 would be licensing a ‘product’ in a holistic manner. On the condition that if they own the rights in the contents, licensors will rarely license with the intention to only apply the licensing elements to the database and not the contents. If a licensor wants to publish all information in its databases including content under these conditions, he should be able to do so with one licence (contrary to ODbL).

Scenario # 2 would offer a solution in case one or more different persons own the copyright/related rights in the contents of the database. If I make a database of all works included in the Dutch museums, and I license this database under a CC BY-SA, I am not in a position to license the contents of this database under the same terms because I don’t own the rights. Then, an ODbL system might be useful.

The problem is to choose the right default. Should it be ‘everything is licensed under CC By-SA unless indicated otherwise’ or should it be ‘only the database is CC BY-SA and the content is ???’

Personally I think that scenario # 1 is preferable with the mention ‘unless indicated otherwise’. Because it is less burdensome for both licensor and licensee to have an opt-out regime as default than an opt-in for the content. From experience in different fields, this is what I picked-up.

In any case, it is obvious these concepts are not entirely clear. We will work on refining the definition of Adapted Material to better convey concept #2 above. Does anyone think we should also try to articulate concept #1 in the license text itself, or is this something we should continue to explain outside the license? Alternatively, we would be interested to know if anyone thinks this is the wrong default. (For example, a licensor should have to apply two separate licenses to a database in order to cover its structure and its contents, similar to how the ODbL works.)

Also, I wanted to mention one point related to the third issue for feedback noted in the policy document. As Thomas rightly pointed out, substantiality could be determined quantitatively or qualitatively. However, in all cases it would be determined with reference to the licensed database. Where that licensed database is small, a quantitatively or qualitatively substantial portion may be relatively insignificant. Nonetheless, as currently written in the draft language, that insignificant portion (although substantial when viewed in reference to the database from which it was extracted) will cause entire databases to be shared alike. Is this the right outcome?

Regarding this question, I strongly disagree with the statement ‘Where that licensed database is small, a quantitatively or qualitatively substantial portion may relatively insignificant’ and with the outcome. If the initial database is small, any re-use of it will be significant and outside the CC-sphere it would amount to infringement even if this small database ends up drowned into a huge database. The licensor has a reasonable expectation of being able to license under CC BY-SA and see these conditions adhered to by the licensee. I don’t know why the expectations of the small database maker (who may have invested significant time, expertise and money in making his database) should weigh less than the licensee’s wish to re-use the contents of the database. The same principle exists in open source software, doesn’t it? To my understanding, there is nothing in the GPL which limits the application of the copyleft clause only to big software components and not small ones.

I don’t see why there should be a distinction in size. Who decides what’s big or small?

Best regards,

Lucie


best,
Sarah

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Federico Morando <federico.morando AT polito.it> wrote:

On 01/28/2013 02:07 PM, T. Margoni wrote:
> I am getting a bit lost. With "its content" are we not referring again
> to the same pictures of Federico's example that we agreed are not
> covered by the license?

This is how I understand this point:
- SA does not require the application of the same license to the
pictures in my example (i.e. the viral aspect does not extend to the
content of the database, e.g. in cases in which you add proprietary
content to an existing CC BY-SA-licensed database); but
- if you just apply a CC BY-SA (for instance) license to a database,
your general purpose standard licensing statement ("pointing" to the DB
as a whole) is interpret as concerning the entire database and its content.

So, I think we basically agree, but we're talking about two different
scenarios,


best,

Federico




_______________________________________________
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