Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:40:09 -0500

drew Roberts wrote:
In a download situation, who makes the copy? The person with the web
server, or the person with the web browser? Both?
This is a subject of some dispute as to the the person with the web
server. (The public distribution right is more clearly implicated than
the copying right). U.S. judicial authority generally holds that the
person with the web browser creates a copy.

So, how would it be a copyright violation on the pard of the downloader and especially if the person with the web server is the copyright holder? Is the license enough to say that the downloader should have known better then to ask for a copy, or would copyright holder need to put some clich through button whereby the downloader would certify that they are not a for profit entity?

Whether there's an implicit license to download would be determined under the totality of the circumstances. Most of the time on the web, when there's nothing said at all about licenses but it's clear that the website owner is the copyright holder, there's an implicit license. When it's clear that the website owner is not the copyright holder, there isn't one. If the CC-NC license icon or name were prominently displayed near the download link, that would be an ambiguous case. I would guess that most courts would find that mere downloading wouldn't be an infringement, and that the CC license was an addition to the implicit license to download, not a substitute for it. But if the web page clearly said that the CC license was the only license, and that for-profit companies shouldn't download, I would think that could well get rid of the implicit license. A click-through with similar text would have a similar effect, but with more certainty.

Not legal advice &c.

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page