Dr. Augustine Fou | 2 Jul 05:34 2007

seeking group comment and input

regarding Creative Commons topics raised in this Flickr Forum thread (700+ posts in 3 days)
http://flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/44325/

A few salient Creative Commons topics excerpted from the thread:

- since Flickr does not allow photo-specific CC version specification (just 1 of the 6 license-types, not version), how does a Flickr user specify a version they want to apply to a specific photo; how does a user prevent Flickr from automatically upgrading the CC version without their consent?

- whether PictureSandbox is a licensee of the photo in the case where the photo appears as a thumbnail in search results presented on the PictureSandbox website (which uses the Flickr API to return such results), even if just for a moment

- whether PictureSandbox overlaying a watermark in search results (which says (CC) image owner's name) constitutes a "derivative work" and therefore "use" of the photo

- whether PictureSandbox is the licensee in the case where a user uses the "phreetings" (photo + greeting) interface on the PictureSandbox website ( http://www.picturesandbox.com/card ) to create a phreeting and send it to a friend, or whether the user is the licensee of the photo

related: whether PictureSandbox's "phreetings" constitutes commercial use if the business is commercial but the phreetings feature carries no ads, does not drive traffic (since it is a private, person-to-person communication).

- whether PictureSandbox is responsible for policing the contents of a CC-licensed image to ensure it does not contain someone else's copyrighted work (i.e. someone stealing someone else's photo and uploading to Flickr, and applying a CC license to it)

- can PictureSandbox witness/notarize a Creative Commons license between image owner (the licensor) and the user (the Licensee) when the image owner is not made aware of this?

related: if PictureSandbox just witnesses the license between the licensor and licensee, is PictureSandbox a party to the license?


I look forward to input and help from this community. There are lots of open topics and questions that may have never been asked before.

thank you all in advance,
Augustine Fou
CEO, PictureSandbox





_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
rob | 2 Jul 14:48 2007

Re: seeking group comment and input

I am not CC, I am not a Lawyer, this is not legal advice.

Quoting "Dr. Augustine Fou" <acfou@...>:

> - since Flickr does not allow photo-specific CC version specification (just
> 1 of the 6 license-types, not version), how does a Flickr user specify a
> version they want to apply to a specific photo; how does a user prevent
> Flickr from automatically upgrading the CC version without their consent?

The main CC licenses from version 2.0 up contain an "upgrade clause"  
that allows derivative works to be relicensed under a later version.  
Pegging the version number has limited utility given this.

I'm not sure about Flickr's Ts&Cs or how they would upgrade users, but  
their CC licenses do seem to be stuck at version 2.

> - whether PictureSandbox is a licensee of the photo in the case where the
> photo appears as a thumbnail in search results presented on the
> PictureSandbox website (which uses the Flickr API to return such results),
> even if just for a moment

I don't think that duration is a factor. And in the absence of any  
other permission to alter and collect the work into a thumbnail page,  
the only permission you have to do so will be that given by the CC  
license.

Unless you claim Fair Use:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2190173/google-cleared-porn

> - whether PictureSandbox overlaying a watermark in search results (which
> says (CC) image owner's name) constitutes a "derivative work" and therefore
> "use" of the photo

Very likely. It looks different but contains the original work, that  
sounds very much like a derivative work.

> - whether PictureSandbox is the licensee in the case where a user uses the
> "phreetings" (photo + greeting) interface on the PictureSandbox website (
> http://www.picturesandbox.com/card ) to create a phreeting and send it to a
> friend, or whether the user is the licensee of the photo

Pass.

> related: whether PictureSandbox's "phreetings" constitutes commercial use if
> the business is commercial but the phreetings feature carries no ads, does
> not drive traffic (since it is a private, person-to-person communication).

I would say that it is commercial but do see the detailed guidelines:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NonCommercial_Guidelines

> - whether PictureSandbox is responsible for policing the contents of a
> CC-licensed image to ensure it does not contain someone else's copyrighted
> work (i.e. someone stealing someone else's photo and uploading to Flickr,
> and applying a CC license to it)

Pass.

> - can PictureSandbox witness/notarize a Creative Commons license between
> image owner (the licensor) and the user (the Licensee) when the image owner
> is not made aware of this?

CC licenses are public licenses. They are applied to a work and then  
anybody can use the work within the boundaries set by the license. You  
do not arrange for the license to apply a single user, so I don't  
think you could witness/notarize the license in this way. In  
particular the U.S. licenses are not contracts (IIRC).

What you could do is to use or set up a service that grabs the image  
metadata at a particular time to confirm that the image was available  
under that license when you or your customer used it.

> related: if PictureSandbox just witnesses the license between the licensor
> and licensee, is PictureSandbox a party to the license?

I don't think you can meaningfully witness/notarize a single user of a  
public license so I don't think this would be an issue.

Depending on your service (which I have not looked at) you could be a  
host and claim DMCA protection, or you could be a service and look at  
how e.g. Kinkos handles copyright policing.

- Rob.
Dr. Augustine Fou | 2 Jul 14:59 2007

Re: seeking group comment and input

Hi Rob

First off, THANK YOU for taking the time to give comment... understood it is not legal or official, but for discussion.

referring specifically to

"What you could do is to use or set up a service that grabs the image
metadata at a particular time to confirm that the image was available
under that license when you or your customer used it."

here is a sample license
http://picturesandbox.com/license/27i8d5sf

at the current time we get whatever information is publicly available on Flickr, where the image owner released the photo under CC. The license itself is simply a "screen shot" of the CC 3.0.  But this screenshot goes into the calculation of the "fingerprint" which is an SHA512 hash of all the info on the page, including a date/time stamp from the NIST Atomic Clock which we ping at the moment of consummation of the license between the image owner and the end-user/licensee.

The purpose of this was to protect the licensee (in case the image owner changes their mind later) by providing an auditable document which not only includes the terms of use (CC v3.0) but also the date/time, the details of the photo, and details of the two parties.

The more difficult "what if" is the case where a "bad actor" steals a photo, uploads it to Flickr, and sets a CC license to it. But clearly it is their wrongdoing that could result in a CC photo being improperly licensed by an end user -- and hence this begs the question whether PictureSandbox.com is required to "look" at each such photo to verify copyright.

- Augustine



_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
adam hyde | 2 Jul 16:38 2007
Picon
Picon

cc-by-sa and gpl

hi,

I was wondering...Can material that is licensed under the CC-BY-SA (3.0)
license be re-issued under the GPL.

I know the two licenses are not compatible. However the clause states:
"you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
compatible license."

What exactly does 'similar' mean? Is the GPL sufficently 'similar' to
the CC-BY-SA?

adam

--

-- 
adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net
Andres Guadamuz | 2 Jul 17:43 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

Dear Adam,

As far as I know, there is an official list of compatible licences, which is
empty at the moment. See:

http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses

In my very personal opinion, GPL v2 is similar enough to BY-SA to fulfil the
requirement of "similarity" described in the licence. However, GPL v3 is
entirely different, and IMO it's not similar enough. 

Best Regards,

Andres

-----------------
Andres Guadamuz
AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Old College, South Bridge
Edinburgh EH8 9YL 

Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
a.guadamuz@...
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/

IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-licenses-bounces@...
[mailto:cc-licenses-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
adam hyde
Sent: 02 July 2007 15:38
To: cc-licenses@...
Subject: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl

hi,

I was wondering...Can material that is licensed under the CC-BY-SA (3.0)
license be re-issued under the GPL.

I know the two licenses are not compatible. However the clause states:
"you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
compatible license."

What exactly does 'similar' mean? Is the GPL sufficently 'similar' to the
CC-BY-SA?

adam

--
adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Paul Keller | 2 Jul 17:53 2007
Picon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl


On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:38 PM, adam hyde wrote:

> I was wondering...Can material that is licensed under the CC-BY-SA  
> (3.0)
> license be re-issued under the GPL.
>
> I know the two licenses are not compatible. However the clause states:
> "you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar  
> or a
> compatible license."
>
> What exactly does 'similar' mean? Is the GPL sufficently 'similar' to
> the CC-BY-SA?

dear Adam,

i think the term 'similar' is not chosen very well. it does not refer  
to licenses that are similar in terms of the requirements and  
permissions but rather other licenses from the cc core licenses suite  
that have the same license elements (BY, SA). this becomes obvious if  
you compare the section from the commons deed (which you quoted) with  
the underlying section from the legal code:

> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the  
> terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License  
> with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative  
> Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license  
> version) that contains the same License Elements as this License  
> (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons  
> Compatible License. If you license the Adaptation under one of the  
> licenses mentioned in (iv), you must comply with the terms of that  
> license.
>
(i) = same
(ii) & (iii) = similar
(iv) = compatible

As Andres noted licenses which are sufficiently similar in terms of  
requirements, permissions and scope would eventually become listed in  
the compatible licenses list. i do however doubt that even the GPL 2  
will be compatible with CC-BY-SA as the former has lots of clauses  
concerning source code which the latter completely lacks. the more  
obvious candidates to eventually appear on this list are the GFDL and  
the FAL.

best, paul

--
paul keller | kennisland
t +31205756720 | e: pk@... | www.kennisland.nl
adam hyde | 2 Jul 18:11 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 16:43 +0100, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> Dear Adam,
> 
> As far as I know, there is an official list of compatible licences, which is
> empty at the moment. See:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
> 

thanks - thats an interesting resource. It states:

"Creative Commons approves licenses as compatible when they, at a
minimum, contain terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as
the key license elements of a particular Creative Commons license and
when a license explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of
works made available under that license under a particular Creative
Commons license."

It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms as the
GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives of works
made available under that license under a particular Creative Commons
license"

The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
picture? :
http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl

Its the GPL with a CC wrapper...is the CC-GPL considered to be living
within the CC family of licenses? If so, then the CC-GPL is 'compatible'
and the question is answered.

is there anyone that can clarify this? 

Just to retour...My specific question is:

Can content under the CC-BY-SA (3.0) be distributed under the GPL? ie.
Is the GPL or 'CC-GPL' a 'similar' or 'compatible' license as per the
license statement :
"you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
compatible license."

anyone want to make me a happy camper with a categorical yes or no? ;)

The reason _why_ this is an interesting question for me is that
documentation about free software is often written in CC BY-SA. If this
material can be then distributed under the GPL then the docs could be
distributed with source code without causing developers extra license
headaches.

adam

> Best Regards,
> 
> Andres
> 
> -----------------
> Andres Guadamuz
> AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
> Intellectual Property and Technology Law
> Old College, South Bridge
> Edinburgh EH8 9YL 
> 
> Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
> Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
> a.guadamuz@...
> http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/
> 
> IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning
> http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cc-licenses-bounces@...
> [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
adam hyde
> Sent: 02 July 2007 15:38
> To: cc-licenses@...
> Subject: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
> 
> hi,
> 
> I was wondering...Can material that is licensed under the CC-BY-SA (3.0)
> license be re-issued under the GPL.
> 
> I know the two licenses are not compatible. However the clause states:
> "you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
> compatible license."
> 
> What exactly does 'similar' mean? Is the GPL sufficently 'similar' to the
> CC-BY-SA?
> 
> adam
> 
> 
> 
> --
> adam hyde
> 'free as in media'
> 
> ~/.nl
> 
> http://www.flossmanuals.net
> http://www.simpel.cc
> http://www.radioqualia.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses@...
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 
> 
> 
--

-- 
adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net
Prodromos Tsiavos | 2 Jul 18:30 2007
Picon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

First, thanks to Andres and Paul for their comments :)

Now, a few brief comments:

When we speak about GPL2 and CC_BY_SA compatibility, we may refer to 
compatibility in two directions, i.e:
1. from GPL2 to CC_BY_SA, which is potentially possible because of the 
language of CC v3.0, provided GPL2 appears on the CC Compatible licenses 
list, but is unlikely to happen (as Paul already explained) because of the 
source code requirements of GPL2
2. from CC_BY_SA to GPL2, which to my opinion is not possible due to the 
GPL2 wording

Adam, I understand that you seem to be interested in (1), but I don't think 
you may get a straightforward answer until the list is compiled; hence, the 
questions that follow in the second part of my email :)

The 'CC-GPL' licence provides only links with meta-data and a human readable 
version of the basic features of the GPL licence; it is not a different or 
'special' GPL licence in any other way.

Hope everyone agrees with the above :)

Second, a few brief questions:

Is there a process established (or a timetable for its establishment) for 
the identification of the "Creative Commons Compatible Licenses"?

I mean, how and who will decide which are the licences that are CC 
Compatible?

Was there any related discussions/ outcomes during the iSummit 07?

Best,
pRo

>
>> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the
>> terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License
>> with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative
>> Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license
>> version) that contains the same License Elements as this License
>> (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons
>> Compatible License. If you license the Adaptation under one of the
>> licenses mentioned in (iv), you must comply with the terms of that
>> license.
>>
> (i) = same
> (ii) & (iii) = similar
> (iv) = compatible
>
> As Andres noted licenses which are sufficiently similar in terms of
> requirements, permissions and scope would eventually become listed in
> the compatible licenses list. i do however doubt that even the GPL 2
> will be compatible with CC-BY-SA as the former has lots of clauses
> concerning source code which the latter completely lacks. the more
> obvious candidates to eventually appear on this list are the GFDL and
> the FAL.
>

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
adam hyde | 2 Jul 19:10 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

Thanks pRo,

> 
> When we speak about GPL2 and CC_BY_SA compatibility, we may refer to 
> compatibility in two directions, i.e:
> 1. from GPL2 to CC_BY_SA, which is potentially possible because of the 
> language of CC v3.0, provided GPL2 appears on the CC Compatible licenses 
> list, but is unlikely to happen (as Paul already explained) because of the 
> source code requirements of GPL2

Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but what exactly is the problem with
'source code requirements' which make the GPL 'incompatible'? 

adam

--

-- 
adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net
Paul Keller | 2 Jul 19:24 2007
Picon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl


On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:10 PM, adam hyde wrote:

> Thanks pRo,
>
>>
>> When we speak about GPL2 and CC_BY_SA compatibility, we may refer to
>> compatibility in two directions, i.e:
>> 1. from GPL2 to CC_BY_SA, which is potentially possible because of  
>> the
>> language of CC v3.0, provided GPL2 appears on the CC Compatible  
>> licenses
>> list, but is unlikely to happen (as Paul already explained)  
>> because of the
>> source code requirements of GPL2
>
>
> Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but what exactly is the problem with
> 'source code requirements' which make the GPL 'incompatible'?

GPL requires that the licensor passes on the source code with the any  
binary distribution (very short summary). CC-BY-SA does not require  
this.
if there was comatibility between GPL and BY-SA then in the direction  
(1) than this would mean that this requirement does not apply under  
the BY-SA. this is hardly compatible but at best a way to get out of  
the source code requirement of GPL. FSF will never agree to this.

in direction (2) (BY-SA --> GPL) this would mean an extra requirement  
placed on the work. so the two are also not compatible. CC will never  
allow licensees to add extra requirements on works obtained under a  
CC license.

also the GPL is a software licenses and the 6 core CC licenses are  
not intended for software. of course the original licensor can always  
dual license under GPL and CC

best, paul

>
> adam
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> adam hyde
> 'free as in media'
>
> ~/.nl
>
> http://www.flossmanuals.net
> http://www.simpel.cc
> http://www.radioqualia.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses@...
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
paul keller | kennisland
t +31205756720 | e: pk@... | www.kennisland.nl

Gmane