Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org>]

We wanted to draw your attention to some of the changes in the
attribution section of 4.0 that we don't think have gotten a lot of
attention or feedback--some of these are fairly significant changes
from 3.0, and we want to pull them out, explain their reasoning and
implications, and get feedback before we get any further into the
process.

Removing title of work:

The title of the work is no longer a requirement for proper
attribution, though it is encouraged that licensees preserve it if it
is given. This was a frequent source of non-compliance with the
license, especially as many works do not have a title clearly
indicated or are not customarily titled at all.

"You may satisfy the conditions [..] in any reasonable manner based on
the medium, means, and context":

This is a new aspect, expecially "context". If there is a customary
form of attribution for the kind of use you are making of a work, you
should use it; the license should not force you into making unusual
arrangements to attribute properly when the form generally used in
your context for conveying that information functions perfectly well.
(This may mean, for example, that placing the attribution in a
particular place or splitting up the information in a particular way
is an acceptable way of complying with the requirements for your use,
even where it would not be in another context.)

Shortcuts:

Similar to the previous requirement, this is intended to introduce
flexibility and ease of compliance--proper attribution may be given by
providing a URI that contains all of the required attribution
information. This is something that many people were doing in
practice and is considered compliant under the license; this draft
makes it explicitly permitted.

"indicate where the Licensed Material may be accessed, and include a
URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material if reasonably practicable":

One choice made in this draft was to keep the requirement that a
source be given for accessing the work, but not necessarily the
original link that the licensor gave.

There are a few reasons for this. One is that the original location is
not always stable: servers go down, material gets removed from
websites, URLs change. Another is the idea of avoiding "vendor
lock-in". Many works get uploaded to third-party platforms. These
platforms go down or the user experience changes in such a way that it
is no longer the preferred location for access, and a new location is
a better link for further distribution. The complete attribution
information for the work is required regardless of where the work is
accessed. However, this is written so that a link back to a specific
location for access is not guaranteed by the license--only a link back
to a place where the original can be accessed that contains all of the
necessary attribution information.

Copyright notices:

One open question is whether to preserve copyright notices. The
current draft requires the information that would ordinarily be
included in a copyright notice: author, additional attribution
parties, warranties and disclaimers, etc. However, many license users
have particular desires to see a particular copyright notice
reproduced even if the information is already present.

As a general matter, we think retaining copyright notices is good for the
ecosystem; however, one of the motivators for eliminating it as a requirement
is that some licensors have used this requirement to insert additional terms
in the notice that are inconsistent with the license, and others include
such an abundance of (c) notices that that is also problematic. Specific
thoughts and input are welcome.

Identifying changes to the work:

This one does not appear in 4.0d2--it is a new suggestion in the
current internal draft, and something we'd like to hear community
opinion on: "if You Share Adapted Material, You must indicate the
Licensed Material was used and describe the changes made." (This would
also be "reasonable to the medium, means, and context", as the other
attribution information would be.)

This appears in several other free licenses, and helps distinguish the
contributions of each authors or group of authors. For example, a
translation might bear the note "translated into Spanish by X".
However, we also see it potentially presents problems in complying.

There are a few specific questions we'd really like to hear answers to:

1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?
2. What kind of description should be required: should a verbal
description be required, or is the ability to see and compare the
changes enough?
3. Is this desirable to put in the license at all, or should it simply
be a best practice?

Thanks for your thoughtful attention and input.

-Kat

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel
Creative Commons
IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.