On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Sam Kuper sam.kuper@uclmail.net wrote:
So, Creative Commons explicitly acknowledges that an adaptation of a CC BY-licensed work can indeed be licensed under CC0 (or, at least, that the adapter's contribution to the adaptation can be; which I note would be the entire adaptation, in cases such as translations or other comprehensive adaptations).
A second derivative in such a case (i.e. an adaptation of the CC0-licensed work) can, of course, be licensed however the second downstream adaptor wishes, as corroborated by the corresponding solid green "PD" row in the table.
(Yes, I know that the FAQ also advises people using one of the yellow cells in the adapter's license chart that they "should take additional care to mark the adaptation as involving multiple copyrights under different terms so that downstream users are aware of their obligations to comply with the licenses from all rights holders." But a *should* is not a *must*, and as is acknowledged in the previous sentence in that FAQ, there is no technical requirement for them to do so.)
The fundamental disagreement seems to be how an adapter's chosen license applies to the original work. As I understand the original work retains its license for all downstream adapters and recipients whether it's the first, second, or Nth adaptation. Additions can be licensed under different terms, but the original material will still be covered by the original license.
Your argument seems to be that when an adapter chooses a license for their adaptation that the adaptation's license is applied to the original, i.e. the original work is re-licensed under different terms. Correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your argument.
The FAQ clarifies the relationship between the license for the original work and the license an adapter chooses for their contribution: "If I derive or adapt material offered under a Creative Commons license, which CC license(s) can I use?
If you make adaptations of material under a CC license (i.e. "remix"), the original CC license always applies to the material you are adapting even once adapted. The license you may choose for your own contribution (called your "adapter's license") depends on which license applies to the original material. Recipients of the adaptation must comply with both the CC license on the original and your adapter’s license."
So here's how things would play out in the Alice, Bob and Mallory scenario you came up with: 1. Alice writes an article, publishes it under BY. 2. Bob adapts the article, gives proper attribution to Alice, and decides to license his contributions under CC0. 3. Mallory adapts Bob's article. Alice's original content is still covered by the BY license, so Mallory must give proper attribution to Alice. Bob's additions were CC0-licensed and have no such requirement.
Have you ever asked somebody at CC if your interpretation is correct?
The licenses, the human-readable summaries, and the CC FAQ all seem to me to be consistent with my interpretation.
Mine too ;-)
Good discussion, but I suppose it will take somebody with access to a lawyer to tell us who is correct, or at least who is more likely to be correct (since as you point out it's not really settled until some court ruling comes out of it).
-
David Hendricks