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: Tarmo Toikkanen <tarmo.toikkanen AT aalto.fi>
  • 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: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:00:47 -0800

Thanks for the email!
I agree that, if attribution is given, then it should be possible for C to figure out the database is subject to BY-SA. But what happens if B does not attribute? If SGDRs do not apply to B, she is not required to attribute because the license does not apply to her use of the database. (assuming copyright is not implicated)

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Tarmo Toikkanen <tarmo.toikkanen AT aalto.fi> wrote:
Hi! A quick thought on the A EU, B US, C EU problem. There is always the BY clause. And CC BY states that the author *and the license* need to be mentioned. So when C is reusing B's database, B should have stated somewhere that some of the database originates from A, and is under CC BY-SA.

-- 
Tarmo Toikkanen
Learning Environments research group, http://legroup.aalto.fi
Aalto university, http://www.aalto.fi

On Wednesday 30. January 2013 at 15.17, T. Margoni wrote:

Hi all!

I have another observation regarding point 4 of Sarah's original email:

4. As explained above, the license does not apply where permission is
not otherwise required by law. This will create situations, for >
example, where someone shares a licensed database without attributing >
the licensor because SGDRs do not apply to that person. In those >
situations, it will be impossible for downstream recipients of the >
database to know that the original licensor has SGDRs in the database, >
or that the licensor applied a CC license at all. If, for example, > >
the downstream recipient is in the EU, will she be in violation of > the
original licensor’s SGDRs if she extracts the database contents > from
the person to whom SGDRs do not apply and subsequently reuses > those
contents without attribution? And if so, are there ways this > problem
can be resolved through our licenses or otherwise?

If I get this right a plausible situation is: A is in EU, B in US, C in EU.
A licenses a DB (SGDR) under SA, B makes a derivative of such DB and
does not apply a SA, but, say, a CC-BY. B's activity is fine since SGDR
does not apply to him. C takes B's DB, and derives further, distributing
only under BY.
I would say that if in C's DB there is a substantial portion of A's DB,
then C is bound by SA, since SGDR applies to him. Plus, if I am right, C
gets a direct license from A for the part of B's derivative that
constitutes A's original DB (a substantial part thereof).

C should be able to know what parts formed the original DB if due notice
is given under Attribution. The problem to link the original licensor
(A) and its eligibility for SGDR persists though.

A suggestion in FAQ or chooser to indicate whether licensors are EU (or
other relevant jurisdictions) based in the Attribution? This, reported
also in metadata, could help. Not sure though if it could create other
types of problems, especially when we have A-Zn...

Interested on others thoughts!






On 2013-01-28 10:50 PM, Sarah Pearson wrote:
As Federico points out, I think we are talking about two different
scenarios here.

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).

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?

best,
Sarah

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Federico Morando

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

--
Dr. Thomas Margoni
Institute for Information Law (IViR) - Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam - The Netherlands
_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list


_______________________________________________
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