Creative Commons in the South Caucasus

[Movses Hakobyan <movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com>]

Dear Catharina, Diane and all,

Following the four Licenses communicated to you, now I am trying to settle
Licenses with ND element with your support. So, below is the extract from
the Law on Copyright (definitions part) FYI then my suggestions for Armenian
versions:

Article 3 *. Subject Matters of Copyright  (Non-official translation)*
k) *derivative works*, particularly:

i translations, adaptations of works, changes, arrangements and
rearrangements, stage versions, audiovisual *adaptations** *and other
transformations of works in the scientific, literary and art domain, which
are in compliance with paragraph (1) of this Article;

ii *collections of works* (encyclopedias, anthologies), databases and other
composite works, which are, by the reason of the selection and (or)
arrangement of their contents, results of a creative work;
So, in view that master licenses shall be in Armenian what I am proposing is
to change "derivative work" term (also appeared in the title) with
"transformations
of works" in Armenian language licenses that is the only correct way, as for
me, to be both legally and linguistically valid.

Purpose of such change is to separate adaptations from collections in
Licenses with NoDeriv element in order to make them both enforceable and
compatible with requirements of Law.

Consequently, in the light of abovementioned, to make all licenses maximally
harmonized, same changes (linguistic part) are proposed to be introduced
appropriately in other Licenses too (Armenian versions).

Could you please let me know your point of view on this as soon as possible,
we are on the way of production of promotional documents and two films that
is why corrected definition terms are of very importance. Thank you in
advance

With kind regards
Movses


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 08:42, Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>wrote:

> Hi Movses,
> I'm willing to explore if there is another word that doesn't have the same
> implications as "Derivatives" and whether the distinction is really
> something widely understood so that it might be considered for the title (in
> Armenian) in the license title.  In the legal code, I assume the word in
> Armenian that you use for "Adaptation" is different from the word in
> Armenian for "Derivatives", per the discussion we have been having.
>  Assuming that is the case, then I would be interested in your thoughts
> about whether that would be appropriate for the Armenian translation of the
> ND titles?
>
> Interested in your thoughts on this.  We can talk about this later also, as
> we approach launch.
>
> Best,
> Diane
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Diane,
>> Thanks for comments, I had some thoughts on commons deed too and it shall
>> be adjusted. But what do you think about changing License title to "no
>> derivatives *except collections*"? Does it look appropriate for you?
>> In this case, neither legal collision nor confusion could occur. However,
>> I guess that it would be inconsistent with general policy of CC, as far as 
>> I
>> know, to have maximally harmonized and consistent licenses all over the
>> jurisdictions.Thank you.
>>
>> With best regards
>> Movses
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 04:16, Diane Peters 
>> <diane AT creativecommons.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Movses,
>>> Please forgive the second email.  But it did occur to me to call
>>> attention to one additional consideration that you may already be aware of
>>> but I wanted to be sure wasn't overlooked.
>>>
>>> You expressed concern that people might be confused by the human readable
>>> commons deed, since they may not look at the legal code where the division
>>> between collective works and adaptations is defined for purposes of what
>>> they can and cannot do with an ND licensed work.  Please keep in mind that
>>> in finalizing the licenses and launch, your team will have some latitude 
>>> to
>>> select the most appropriate terminology for the Armenian language commons
>>> deed.  You may want to consider how to phrase "no derivative works"
>>> appropriately.  That may help convey via the human readable commons deed 
>>> the
>>> concept that is spelled out in the legal code.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to working with you to complete this.  You're very close!
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Diane Peters <
>>> diane AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>> Thanks again.  I believe we understand your issue thoroughly.
>>>>  Unfortunately, I do not believe there is anything more we can do with
>>>> respect to the text of the ND licenses themselves as we cannot have the 
>>>> ND
>>>> term extend to use of a work in Collections, as already mentioned.  From
>>>> what we can tell, you've drafted those provisions as best as possible 
>>>> under
>>>> the circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> I kindly offer the following additional suggestions, though.  First,
>>>> your team make clear in the explanation of substantive changes document 
>>>> the
>>>> differences between how adaptations are treated under Armenian law and 
>>>> how
>>>> they are treated under the ND licenses - which you may have already done
>>>> ;-).  Second, that you create an FAQ in Armenian for inclusion on the 
>>>> local
>>>> jurisdiction web site making this clear also - you might model it on the
>>>> description included in the substantive changes document.  And third, 
>>>> work
>>>> closely with the other leads and agree to emphasize this difference in
>>>> presentations and whenever the licenses are being promoted.
>>>>
>>>> For CC's part, I am going to look into preparing an FAQ for the main
>>>> website on the importance of licensors and licensees understanding
>>>> jurisdiction specific issues before they choose a license, as well as
>>>> including that on our "Things to Thing About" before using a CC license
>>>> page.  We will also think about publishing an explanation about the
>>>> intricacies of "adaptation" vs "derivative work" issue so that other
>>>> countries with similar issues share a common understanding.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully, between all these efforts we can help minimize any potential
>>>> confusion and educate would-be licensors and licensees.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we should now proceed ahead with having the proposal you've
>>>> made (separating adaptation and collective work into their own 
>>>> stand-alone
>>>> definitions noting where appropriate these are the definitions "for 
>>>> purposes
>>>> of the" licenses) integrated into the licenses.  Does that sound correct 
>>>> to
>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Diane,
>>>>> Thanks for reply. As you know according to RA Law on Copyright both
>>>>> adaptations and Collections are Derivative Works. Moreover, the Title of
>>>>> License is "NoDerivatives" that again implies both adaptations and
>>>>> collections and in fact could mislead users especially those who did not
>>>>> read Legal Code but commons deeds. Of course we can make a reservation 
>>>>> in
>>>>> the text of the license like "for the purpose of this license 
>>>>> collections
>>>>> are not derivative work" or smt like that but I have doubts whether it 
>>>>> can
>>>>> work because in case of discrepancy between the License and the Law 
>>>>> (brought
>>>>> as an argument by complainant) the court rulling usually is in favor of 
>>>>> law.
>>>>>
>>>>> May be there are other considerations that I overlooked? Please advise
>>>>> me
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>> Movses
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 00:45, Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just so I'm clear, when you say "not in line with Armenian
>>>>>> legislation", do you mean that by separating the definitions of 
>>>>>> Adaptation
>>>>>> and Collection in the way proposed above, the license wouldn't be 
>>>>>> legally
>>>>>> interpreted correctly or enforceable as intended under Armenian law? 
>>>>>> Or do
>>>>>> you mean, it doesn't have the same visual structure but legally the ND
>>>>>> license will be interpreted and enforced under Armenian law properly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I, too, prefer the approach of keeping the definitions separate for
>>>>>> clarity if at all possible and provided it doesn't render the license
>>>>>> unenforceable and it is interpreted correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding your question about restricting collections as a derivative
>>>>>> work, as you note, our ND licenses expressly permit a licensee to 
>>>>>> distribute
>>>>>> the work as part of a collection, so that right should not be limited 
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> ported ND licenses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope this makes sense, looking forward to your reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Diane
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Diane,
>>>>>>> Frankly, there is no way to be in line with Armenian legislation in
>>>>>>> this regard because collections and adaptations are treated under the 
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> definition namely "Derivative Works" under Armenian Law. The problem 
>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>> legally we could not separate them, otherwise to keep license as 
>>>>>>> restricting
>>>>>>> derivative works (as for Armenian law) shall mean restrict 
>>>>>>> collections too,
>>>>>>> which is contrary to the philosophy of creative commons licenses with 
>>>>>>> ND
>>>>>>> element. If you have any suggestion they are really welcome. By the 
>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>> what do you think it is possible to restrict collections (collective 
>>>>>>> works)
>>>>>>> as a part of derivative works?
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 22:01, Diane Peters <
>>>>>>> diane AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>> To follow up on this proposal per the email thread below, I have no
>>>>>>>> objections to the structure and am supportive.  My only concerns 
>>>>>>>> were that
>>>>>>>> (1) this structure needed to legally work under Armenian law, and it 
>>>>>>>> appears
>>>>>>>> that it does from your emails, and (2) users of the licenses (and 
>>>>>>>> courts in
>>>>>>>> your jurisdiction, for that matter) are able to understand the 
>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>> without difficulty.  Your emails suggest this works for the 
>>>>>>>> licenses, and so
>>>>>>>> I'm supportive of how this has worked out.  I believe we're set!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking forward to seeing the concluded licenses.  Good luck with
>>>>>>>> that process, and thanks for your hard work and focus on the 
>>>>>>>> intricacies of
>>>>>>>> the license porting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Diane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>>>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Catharina,
>>>>>>>>> It is very nice to come to the conclusion with drafting Licenses. I
>>>>>>>>> hope in a couple of days I will forward all materials for 
>>>>>>>>> proofreading.
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for expertize
>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 15:47, Catharina Maracke <
>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for getting back to me on this. Your suggestion sounds
>>>>>>>>>> fine to me if this also fits into Armenian law? If you go for this 
>>>>>>>>>> solution,
>>>>>>>>>> please make sure that in both licenses including the ND element 
>>>>>>>>>> (BY-ND and
>>>>>>>>>> BY-NC-ND) you don't mention the term "derivative work" or 
>>>>>>>>>> "adaptation" in
>>>>>>>>>> the license grant or in Section 7) or 8).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Diane, do you have any objections or concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much again to all of you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Catharina
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Dr. Catharina Maracke
>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Movses Hakobyan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Catharina,
>>>>>>>>>> I see we are in the final stage, and just the last question: what
>>>>>>>>>> do you think if I take over the structure /solution from BY-ND 
>>>>>>>>>> Unported
>>>>>>>>>> version as below? Is this OK? So, first goes definition of 
>>>>>>>>>> Adaptation that
>>>>>>>>>> includes "derivative work" (only for the purpose of this License) 
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> "collection" that  will not be considered asan Adaptation and so 
>>>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *1. Definitions*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    1. *"Adaptation"* means a work based upon the Work, or upon
>>>>>>>>>>    the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, 
>>>>>>>>>> adaptation,
>>>>>>>>>>     derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of
>>>>>>>>>>    a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and 
>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>    cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work 
>>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>>>    recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form 
>>>>>>>>>> recognizably derived
>>>>>>>>>>    from the original, except that a work that constitutes a 
>>>>>>>>>> Collection will not
>>>>>>>>>>    be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. 
>>>>>>>>>> For the
>>>>>>>>>>    avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, 
>>>>>>>>>> performance or
>>>>>>>>>>    phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation 
>>>>>>>>>> with a moving
>>>>>>>>>>    image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the 
>>>>>>>>>> purpose of this
>>>>>>>>>>    License.
>>>>>>>>>>    2. *"Collection"* means a collection of literary or artistic
>>>>>>>>>>    works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, 
>>>>>>>>>> phonograms or
>>>>>>>>>>    broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works 
>>>>>>>>>> listed in
>>>>>>>>>>    Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and
>>>>>>>>>>    arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual 
>>>>>>>>>> creations, in which
>>>>>>>>>>    the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along 
>>>>>>>>>> with one or
>>>>>>>>>>    more other contributions, each constituting separate and 
>>>>>>>>>> independent works
>>>>>>>>>>    in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective 
>>>>>>>>>> whole. A work
>>>>>>>>>>    that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an 
>>>>>>>>>> Adaptation (as
>>>>>>>>>>    defined above) for the purposes of this License.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 17:46, Catharina Maracke <
>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for your reply! I think your suggestion sounds fine
>>>>>>>>>>> and we should go ahead. As mentioned, it would be important to 
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>> separate collections and adaptations (or any other appropriate 
>>>>>>>>>>> term for
>>>>>>>>>>> "adaptation" depending on local Copyright law) so that we can 
>>>>>>>>>>> clarify that
>>>>>>>>>>> both ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND) don't allow for derivative 
>>>>>>>>>>> works but
>>>>>>>>>>> still allow to distribute and publicly perform the work including 
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> incorporated in collections.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies for not being aware of this earlier - sometimes some
>>>>>>>>>>> final questions only come up at the very last minute.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you revise the licenses and send back to us for final
>>>>>>>>>>> proofreading?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Catharina
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Dr. Catharina Maracke
>>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Movses Hakobyan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Catharina,
>>>>>>>>>>> Back to our discussions on the first license BY-NC-SA, I made
>>>>>>>>>>> "derivative work" to include both adaptations and collections 
>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
>>>>>>>>>>> provisions of Armenian Copyright Law. At that time we agreed to 
>>>>>>>>>>> follow that
>>>>>>>>>>> formulation to be in line with Law at least for this point. 
>>>>>>>>>>> However, in
>>>>>>>>>>> order to find optimal solution I separated adaptations and 
>>>>>>>>>>> collections
>>>>>>>>>>> within "derivative work" definition to address them separately in 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> wording of License.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, on this point, what I can suggest (BY-ND License) is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    1. Keep two definitions (Adaptation and Collection) intact
>>>>>>>>>>>    but remove the note on derivative work (Section 1.a) as it is 
>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>>    Unported version (BY-ND License).
>>>>>>>>>>>    2. Distinguish Collections from Adaptations (instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>    derivative work- As you suggested-Am I right?) with mentioning 
>>>>>>>>>>> -"for the
>>>>>>>>>>>    purpose of this license".
>>>>>>>>>>>    3. And finally implement all abovementioned only in BY-ND
>>>>>>>>>>>    license.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am looking for your reply
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>