Creative Commons in the South Caucasus

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

Dear friends,
In case you have not got the letter below I am resending that in expectation
of your advice and comments.
Thank you
Movses


On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 18:02, Movses Hakobyan 
<movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>