cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Cc-europe mailing list
List archive
Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0
- 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 ToikkanenLearning Environments research group, http://legroup.aalto.fiAalto university, http://www.aalto.fiOn 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 isnot 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 > theoriginal licensor’s SGDRs if she extracts the database contents > fromthe person to whom SGDRs do not apply and subsequently reuses > thosecontents without attribution? And if so, are there ways this > problemcan 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 anddoes not apply a SA, but, say, a CC-BY. B's activity is fine since SGDRdoes not apply to him. C takes B's DB, and derives further, distributingonly 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, Cgets a direct license from A for the part of B's derivative thatconstitutes A's original DB (a substantial part thereof).C should be able to know what parts formed the original DB if due noticeis 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 (orother relevant jurisdictions) based in the Attribution? This, reportedalso in metadata, could help. Not sure though if it could create othertypes 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 differentscenarios here.1) A licensor applies BY-SA to a database, in which case it is assumedthe license applies to any rights the licensor has in the databasestructure (copyright and/or SGDRs) _and_ any rights he or she has in thedatabase contents.
2) A licensee extracts and reuses a substantial portion of aBY-SA-licensed database in his own separate database in which he hasSGDRs, in which case the obligation to ShareAlike only extends to therights he has in the database structure (copyright and/or SGDRs).In any case, it is obvious these concepts are not entirely clear. Wewill work on refining the definition of Adapted Material to betterconvey concept #2 above. Does anyone think we should also try toarticulate concept #1 in the license text itself, or is this somethingwe should continue to explain outside the license? Alternatively, wewould be interested to know if anyone thinks this is the wrong default.(For example, a licensor should have to apply two separate licenses to adatabase in order to cover its structure and its contents, similar tohow the ODbL works.)Also, I wanted to mention one point related to the third issue forfeedback 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 thelicensed database. Where that licensed database is small, aquantitatively or qualitatively substantial portion may be relativelyinsignificant. Nonetheless, as currently written in the draft language,that insignificant portion (although substantial when viewed inreference to the database from which it was extracted) will cause entiredatabases to be shared alike. Is this the right outcome?best,SarahOn Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Federico MorandoOn 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 thepictures in my example (i.e. the viral aspect does not extend to thecontent of the database, e.g. in cases in which you add proprietarycontent 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 DBas a whole) is interpret as concerning the entire database and itscontent.So, I think we basically agree, but we're talking about two differentscenarios,best,Federico_______________________________________________CC-Europe mailing list--Dr. Thomas MargoniInstitute for Information Law (IViR) - Faculty of LawUniversity 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
-
Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0
, (continued)
-
Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0,
T. Margoni, 01/25/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, melanie dulong, 01/25/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Sarah Pearson, 01/25/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, T. Margoni, 01/28/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Federico Morando, 01/28/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Sarah Pearson, 01/28/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Guibault, Lucie, 01/30/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, T. Margoni, 01/30/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Sarah Pearson, 01/30/2013
- Message not available
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Tarmo Toikkanen, 01/30/2013
- Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0, Sarah Pearson, 01/31/2013
-
Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0,
T. Margoni, 01/25/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.