Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Does ND allow complete quotations?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james.grimmelmann AT yale.edu>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Does ND allow complete quotations?
  • Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:34:53 -0700

At 07:40 AM 8/14/2004, James Martin wrote:

I am interested in licensing content from my blog. I do not want the content to be altered. However, I wouldn't mind if someone included an unmodified blog entry of mine in an essay of his. Would "No Derivatives" allow this?

No, it would not, with one significant exception. The NonCommercial licenses do not allow derivative works. My understanding is that any work with enough other content (such as a line-by-line editorial analysis or such elaboration) to be separately copyrightable is, if it copies your blog entry, a derivative work of that blog entry.

The human-readable Commons Deed says something similar in its language, that "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." "Build upon" is the operative phrase here.

The exception is for collective works, which the license (following U.S. copyright law) defines as "a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole." So a compendium of several blog posts would be allowed.

Further, I wouldn't mind if someone quoted only part of a blog entry, as long as it wasn't modified. Would "No Derivatives" allow that?

Again, no. The selective quotation is, in fact, more of an alteration than just adding new material. It's "even more" of a derivative work than the above scenario.

If not, is there a way to specify those conditions (or the first if not the second)?

Note that, no matter what you specify, you can never take away the fair use rights of others. Depending on the context and length of the quotation, I think it's very likely that your second scenario would constitute fair use, and would always be okay, no matter what license you use.

I am not a lawyer and I do not speak for Creative Commons.

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page