Has the scope of Share Alike narrowed between CC 3.0 and 4.0?Understanding 'Adapted Material' for illustrations in a bookDoes the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence allow you to specify exactly how attribution must be given?CC Share-Alike for Open Source SoftwareIs a single article/blog post considered a collective work?Attribution in Stack OverflowIs editing a comment in SO copyright infringement?Is it necessary to audibly announce a copyright notice when using music licensed under Creative Commons Attribution?Scope of Creative Commons “Ownership”What are the responsabilities about cited text after original licensor confesses illegal license?Question about using Wikipedia content. About “CC-BY-SA” license. About its “Copyleft/Share Alike” partUnderstanding 'Adapted Material' for illustrations in a book
How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?
What is the highest possible scrabble score for placing a single tile
Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?
How can ping know if my host is down
Which was the first story featuring espers?
What is the English pronunciation of "pain au chocolat"?
How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?
Why should universal income be universal?
Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup
How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?
Creating two special characters
Does the reader need to like the PoV character?
"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?
What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?
Why is the "ls" command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?
How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years
What is Cash Advance APR?
What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?
Why does Carol not get rid of the Kree symbol on her suit when she changes its colours?
Change the color of a single dot in `ddot` symbol
Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?
What does Apple's new App Store requirement mean
Is this part of the description of the Archfey warlock's Misty Escape feature redundant?
Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced
Has the scope of Share Alike narrowed between CC 3.0 and 4.0?
Understanding 'Adapted Material' for illustrations in a bookDoes the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence allow you to specify exactly how attribution must be given?CC Share-Alike for Open Source SoftwareIs a single article/blog post considered a collective work?Attribution in Stack OverflowIs editing a comment in SO copyright infringement?Is it necessary to audibly announce a copyright notice when using music licensed under Creative Commons Attribution?Scope of Creative Commons “Ownership”What are the responsabilities about cited text after original licensor confesses illegal license?Question about using Wikipedia content. About “CC-BY-SA” license. About its “Copyleft/Share Alike” partUnderstanding 'Adapted Material' for illustrations in a book
What's the issue?
The wording of CC BY-SA licenses changed significantly between versions 3.0 and 4.0, but I don't believe Creative Commons (CC) intended to narrow the scope of share alike (I explain why later). When I read the licenses, however, it seems to me that the scope has narrowed, which makes me suspect that my concept of what the scope is for either 3.0 or 4.0 is wrong.
In this question, consider an example where someone uses several illustrations released together under a CC BY-SA license to create a book. The illustrations are completely unaltered; the author simply places an illustration on each page with some separate (but related) text to create the book.
Different scope between 3.0 and 4.0 licenses
Under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, I believe the author is not required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is out of the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 4.0 license legal code, for the book to be Adapted Material, the book must be based on the licensed work (which is the case) and modify the licensed material (which has not happened). Only Adapted Material must be shared alike, therefore this is not required to be.
This argument for 4.0 appears to be agreed upon in this question.
Under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, I believe the author is required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is within the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 3.0 license legal code, for the book to be an Adaptation, it must be based upon the work (which is the case) and not be a collection (it's not a collection - see below). Adaptations must be shared alike, therefore this is required to be.
A collection must include work in 'its entirety in unmodified form' (which is the case), 'along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves'. The only other contribution is the added text, which is not independent from the images since the images are chosen (or text is written) so that they go well together.
Why the scope shouldn't have narrowed
CC explicitly state here that the scope of share alike hasn't changed, and state more generally that adding a clarification to narrow the scope of adaptations would 'abuse the trust of licensors' (see end of point 2 and point 3 in the ShareAlike intent document).
Yes, the wording of the licenses have changed significantly, for example, in 4.0, there's no explicit mention of collections, but this is presumably due to the specific aim of 4.0 to make the license internationally applicable and easily understood. CC state here, for example, that not explicitly addressing collections 'does not change the scope of the license or the ShareAlike term'.
Have I got the wrong impression of the scope for 3.0 or 4.0, or is it actually that the scope of share alike has narrowed?
copyright licensing creative-commons
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
What's the issue?
The wording of CC BY-SA licenses changed significantly between versions 3.0 and 4.0, but I don't believe Creative Commons (CC) intended to narrow the scope of share alike (I explain why later). When I read the licenses, however, it seems to me that the scope has narrowed, which makes me suspect that my concept of what the scope is for either 3.0 or 4.0 is wrong.
In this question, consider an example where someone uses several illustrations released together under a CC BY-SA license to create a book. The illustrations are completely unaltered; the author simply places an illustration on each page with some separate (but related) text to create the book.
Different scope between 3.0 and 4.0 licenses
Under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, I believe the author is not required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is out of the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 4.0 license legal code, for the book to be Adapted Material, the book must be based on the licensed work (which is the case) and modify the licensed material (which has not happened). Only Adapted Material must be shared alike, therefore this is not required to be.
This argument for 4.0 appears to be agreed upon in this question.
Under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, I believe the author is required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is within the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 3.0 license legal code, for the book to be an Adaptation, it must be based upon the work (which is the case) and not be a collection (it's not a collection - see below). Adaptations must be shared alike, therefore this is required to be.
A collection must include work in 'its entirety in unmodified form' (which is the case), 'along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves'. The only other contribution is the added text, which is not independent from the images since the images are chosen (or text is written) so that they go well together.
Why the scope shouldn't have narrowed
CC explicitly state here that the scope of share alike hasn't changed, and state more generally that adding a clarification to narrow the scope of adaptations would 'abuse the trust of licensors' (see end of point 2 and point 3 in the ShareAlike intent document).
Yes, the wording of the licenses have changed significantly, for example, in 4.0, there's no explicit mention of collections, but this is presumably due to the specific aim of 4.0 to make the license internationally applicable and easily understood. CC state here, for example, that not explicitly addressing collections 'does not change the scope of the license or the ShareAlike term'.
Have I got the wrong impression of the scope for 3.0 or 4.0, or is it actually that the scope of share alike has narrowed?
copyright licensing creative-commons
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
What's the issue?
The wording of CC BY-SA licenses changed significantly between versions 3.0 and 4.0, but I don't believe Creative Commons (CC) intended to narrow the scope of share alike (I explain why later). When I read the licenses, however, it seems to me that the scope has narrowed, which makes me suspect that my concept of what the scope is for either 3.0 or 4.0 is wrong.
In this question, consider an example where someone uses several illustrations released together under a CC BY-SA license to create a book. The illustrations are completely unaltered; the author simply places an illustration on each page with some separate (but related) text to create the book.
Different scope between 3.0 and 4.0 licenses
Under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, I believe the author is not required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is out of the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 4.0 license legal code, for the book to be Adapted Material, the book must be based on the licensed work (which is the case) and modify the licensed material (which has not happened). Only Adapted Material must be shared alike, therefore this is not required to be.
This argument for 4.0 appears to be agreed upon in this question.
Under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, I believe the author is required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is within the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 3.0 license legal code, for the book to be an Adaptation, it must be based upon the work (which is the case) and not be a collection (it's not a collection - see below). Adaptations must be shared alike, therefore this is required to be.
A collection must include work in 'its entirety in unmodified form' (which is the case), 'along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves'. The only other contribution is the added text, which is not independent from the images since the images are chosen (or text is written) so that they go well together.
Why the scope shouldn't have narrowed
CC explicitly state here that the scope of share alike hasn't changed, and state more generally that adding a clarification to narrow the scope of adaptations would 'abuse the trust of licensors' (see end of point 2 and point 3 in the ShareAlike intent document).
Yes, the wording of the licenses have changed significantly, for example, in 4.0, there's no explicit mention of collections, but this is presumably due to the specific aim of 4.0 to make the license internationally applicable and easily understood. CC state here, for example, that not explicitly addressing collections 'does not change the scope of the license or the ShareAlike term'.
Have I got the wrong impression of the scope for 3.0 or 4.0, or is it actually that the scope of share alike has narrowed?
copyright licensing creative-commons
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What's the issue?
The wording of CC BY-SA licenses changed significantly between versions 3.0 and 4.0, but I don't believe Creative Commons (CC) intended to narrow the scope of share alike (I explain why later). When I read the licenses, however, it seems to me that the scope has narrowed, which makes me suspect that my concept of what the scope is for either 3.0 or 4.0 is wrong.
In this question, consider an example where someone uses several illustrations released together under a CC BY-SA license to create a book. The illustrations are completely unaltered; the author simply places an illustration on each page with some separate (but related) text to create the book.
Different scope between 3.0 and 4.0 licenses
Under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, I believe the author is not required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is out of the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 4.0 license legal code, for the book to be Adapted Material, the book must be based on the licensed work (which is the case) and modify the licensed material (which has not happened). Only Adapted Material must be shared alike, therefore this is not required to be.
This argument for 4.0 appears to be agreed upon in this question.
Under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, I believe the author is required to release the book itself as CC BY-SA (or equivalent), so this is within the scope of the share-alike clause.
To paraphrase the 3.0 license legal code, for the book to be an Adaptation, it must be based upon the work (which is the case) and not be a collection (it's not a collection - see below). Adaptations must be shared alike, therefore this is required to be.
A collection must include work in 'its entirety in unmodified form' (which is the case), 'along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves'. The only other contribution is the added text, which is not independent from the images since the images are chosen (or text is written) so that they go well together.
Why the scope shouldn't have narrowed
CC explicitly state here that the scope of share alike hasn't changed, and state more generally that adding a clarification to narrow the scope of adaptations would 'abuse the trust of licensors' (see end of point 2 and point 3 in the ShareAlike intent document).
Yes, the wording of the licenses have changed significantly, for example, in 4.0, there's no explicit mention of collections, but this is presumably due to the specific aim of 4.0 to make the license internationally applicable and easily understood. CC state here, for example, that not explicitly addressing collections 'does not change the scope of the license or the ShareAlike term'.
Have I got the wrong impression of the scope for 3.0 or 4.0, or is it actually that the scope of share alike has narrowed?
copyright licensing creative-commons
copyright licensing creative-commons
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
asked 3 mins ago
hodgenovicehodgenovice
1093
1093
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
hodgenovice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
hodgenovice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38324%2fhas-the-scope-of-share-alike-narrowed-between-cc-3-0-and-4-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
hodgenovice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
hodgenovice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
hodgenovice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
hodgenovice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38324%2fhas-the-scope-of-share-alike-narrowed-between-cc-3-0-and-4-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
