- Section 3.a.1.A.i. Designation of the creator(s), appropriateness
- Section 3.a.1.A.ii. Copyright notice
- Section 3.a.1.A.iii. Reference to this Public Licence
- Section 3.a.1.A.iv. Reference to the disclaimer
- Section 3.a.1.A.v. To the extent reasonably practicable, a URI or hyperlink to the licensed material
A. Overview
1 The attribution requirement is a cornerstone of the entire Creative Commons approach. In debates that revolve around the fundamental differences between public licences and open content , it is generally not denied that the open content world also exists within the reality of the global market economy, meaning that all parties involved in open content usage scenarios are dependent on monetary income, whether from their creative work or other sources.
2 To deny or even conceal this would not only very quickly tip the balance of any debate in favour of the opponents of the open content idea. It would also ignore the reality that the group of CC or generally openness-minded creatives is by no means homogeneously composed of amateurs. Of course, this group also includes professional creatives who very much want to be able to make a living directly from their creative work.
3 Whether and, if so, in which constellations this actually succeeds in enhancing the importance of attribution as a more significant direct consideration compared to monetary compensation is not one of the answers provided by a legal commentary, but remains the subject of economic analysis . However, it should be pointed out here that such a central role of naming the author is not limited to the CC approach, but is found in many standard licence models and has been reflected not least in several definitions – in the form of the maximum tolerable restriction specified in each case. This is particularly prominent in the Open Definition
4 The fact that the CC approach does not conflict with commercial profit-seeking can also be proven historically. The licence models for free software developed since the 1980s were specifically designed to ensure that program code released in this way could be used commercially . Commercial activity accounts for a large part of human interaction with intangible goods and is included in the definition of free software in the fundamental "Freedom 0", according to which only software that may be executed "for any purpose" can be free.
5 This unrestricted usability may be considered libertarian in that it allows any use, including commercial use. However, what it also eliminates is the leverage of marketing or marketability via exclusive copyrights, which is otherwise common in the licensing business copyright. Since all interested parties are allowed to make comprehensive use of the released content, including for commercial purposes, there is generally no incentive to do "business" in the sense of monetising a scarce commodity. In other words, free content as defined by the Open Definition, the FSF definition free software, etc., may be used commercially by anyone, but since this also applies to everyone else, there is usually no incentive either for (further) direct commercial exploitation by the authors themselves or for "parasitic" commercial exploitation of such content by others – at least if this would involve any significant entrepreneurial risk associated with it. After all, someone else could step in at any time and make the same offer. By allowing commercial use for everyone, it becomes unattractive for everyone and loses its otherwise central role in intellectual property law. And the many legal control instruments that secure this role and are perceived as restricting freedom become irrelevant.
6 Those who accuse free licences of being vehicles of an economic libertarian ideology have therefore not understood the principle behind them. Rather, it is public licences that exclude commercial use licences that, precisely because of this reservation, leave the scarcity logic of rights exploitation intact and are not recognised as "free" for this very reason (cf. on all this: Commentary on the NC clause, section 1 margin note 73).
7 For some, it is sufficient to be able to remove their own works from the logic of scarcity. Therefore, in version 1.0 of the CCPL, the attribution requirement is also optional. All six licence types in version 1.0 are therefore also available without the attribution clause, making a total of 12 different CCPL 1.0 licences. However, the feedback that Creative Commons received at the time indicated that interest in these attribution-free CCPL types was rather low, too low in any case to continue offering a full dozen as a set in the future, and consequently, from version 2.0 onwards, only the licence types with an attribution clause (BY) were further developed. This lack of interest can be interpreted to mean that people apparently find it difficult to simply remove the market economy drivers associated with scarcity without replacing them. If the immediate monetisability is already gone, they would like to have at least something remotely comparable instead, in this case: additional recognition, additional "fame" in the form of their name, which must be mentioned.
8 However, the concept of a CCPL without a naming obligation lives on in a certain way to this day, namely within the CC0 (CCZero) tool. As a fallback mechanism in case the comprehensive declaration of waiver of rights contained therein is not effective, it contains a kind of CC licence without conditions (fallback licence). So if you don't value fame or fortune, you don't need to resort to CCPL 1.0, but can opt for CC0 instead.
B. Location of the BY clause within the licence texts
9 The attribution clause is the only one of the modular CC restrictions that has been included in all licence variantssince version 2.0 – and is therefore, strictly speaking, not part of the modular concept of the CC approach.
10 In all versions of the CC licence set, the attribution clause is the first in the section of restrictions (also: conditions), which varies in length depending on the licence type and always follows directly after the section on the granting of rights. This makes sense insofar as both sections together form the core of the programme of rights and obligations This makes sense insofar as both sections together form the core of the programme of rights and obligations offered to those interested in using the work.
11 What structurally precedes and follows these two particularly important sections in the text varies across the different versions, as does the designation of the sections:
CC BY Version 2.0 en | CC BY Version 3.0 en | CC BY Version 4.0 international |
1. Definitions | 1. Definitions | 1. Definitions |
2. Limitations of copyright | 2. Limitations of intellectual property rights | 1. Definitions |
3. Licensing | 3. Granting of rights of use | 2. Scope (EN: Scope) |
4. Restrictions | 4. Conditions | 3. Licence conditions (EN: Licence Conditions) |
5. Warranty | 5. Warranty | 4. Sui Generis Database Rights (EN: Sui Generis Database Rights) |
6. Liability | 6. Limitation of liability | 5. Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability (EN: Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability) |
(...) | (...) | (...) |
Comparison of the sections before and (two) after those on the granting of rights and their directly following restriction; it is clear here that the CC licences underwent a fundamental restructuring with version 4.0, which, however, left the granting/restriction pair as such intact.
C. Structure of the clause and variants
12 In line with the central role of the person creating the content and their designation, the clause begins with the mandatory content of the attribution (1.) and, within that, the content relating to the person (A.).
13 This is followed by provisions on the how, i.e. the form of the source information (2.), as well as further provisions on special constellations of prohibition of attribution by the licensor (3.) and a majority of processing stagesthat may develop as a result of processing (4.).
14 The fact that section 3 in all licence variants except those with a Share-Alike clause only has letter a without a subsequent letter b is likely to have been chosen in order to ensure uniformity of designation of the attribution clause across all variants.
D. Section 3.a.1. Contents of the attribution
15 Section 3.a.1 defines the what of the attribution information for the respective CC-licensed content and begins with the designation of the person or other entity that created the content or to whom it was attributed. "Designation" was used here) – somewhat somewhat contrary to the title of the clause – instead of the term "name" (in the English version: "identification"), as a generic term that encompasses both names in the colloquial and civil registry sense, as well as stage names and other types of identifiers, in particular those that do not refer to persons . This far-reaching inclusion is necessary because the CC licences expressly want to allow a work or content to be permanently attributed to another person or entity in such a way that the latter ultimately occupies a position within the scope of the clause that is fully equivalent to that of the author.
16 Such arbitrary authorship is alien to German law, and even the most extensive granting of rights of use under the UrhG (German Copyright Act) can never really confer the same legal position as that held by the actual author, i.e. the person who intellectually accomplished the act of creation, due to the monistic tradition of copyright law in Germany.
17 In English, "by" obviously refers to the preposition that connects the work and the author in such a way that the statement reveals who the creator is. Here, too, "BY" was not translated into German with its direct counterpart "VON", which would have been conceivable in principle, but for reasons of international uniformity in abbreviations, this was not done in any of the 30 official translations of CCPL 4.0
I. Requirements for licensing and distribution, basic principle of existing information
18 It is not uncommon for the condition of correct attribution, which is so prominent in the CC approach, to be interpreted as so strictly mandatory that the impression arises that licensors are obliged to include their name in the original information – and that interested users are required to research any names not found there before they can use the work or the content. Neither of these is the case. There is no obligation to use the name of the author or rights holder, even under personal rights law (see the negative right of attribution below in Rn. 156 ff.). And the licence text states quite explicitly at the beginning of section 3.a.1.A that those interested in using the work must only reproduce – in the truest sense of the word – the information they have found: "insofar as it [= the source information] has been attached to the licensed material by the licensor". 19 A tension arises when, in the course of repeated use, deviations or even mere accidental omissions occur in the licence information.
19 A conflict arises when, in the course of repeated use, deviations or even mere accidental omissions occur in the licence information. A distinction must be made here: if the deviations are merely formal and do not affect the identifiability of the licensor or the reference to the licence in terms of content, then these deviations are harmless. This follows from the fact that licence information must always be provided in a manner appropriate to the medium (see section 3.a.2) and therefore, due to the convergence of different media in which or through which a work can be displayed, can never be done in exactly the same way. The same also follows from the rationale of open licences as a tool for easy and uncomplicated use. To illustrate this with examples:
20 If the CC BY 4.0 licence is referred to in one case by this abbreviation, in another by its full form in the respective language (e.g. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0), or if in one case the name of the licensor appears before the licence and in another after it, or if in one case the first names are written out in full (e.g. "John Hendrik Weitzmann") and in another case the middle name is abbreviated (e.g. "John H. Weitzmann"), this does not change the content of the information and therefore does not call into question the validity of the licence .
21 However, the situation is different if omissions or changes affect the content of the licence by altering the content of the licence notice in such a way that it becomes ambiguous. This is the case, for example, if the designations of the licence modules (i.e. the abbreviations NC, ND, or SA or the respective long form such as "no modification", "Share Alike", etc.) are omitted in whole or in part, or the name of the licensor is not reproduced or is abbreviated in such a way that it is no longer identifiable (e.g. "jw" instead of "John Hendrik Weitzmann"). The omission of the identifier of the attribution clause ("BY" and, depending on the language, "Namensnennung", "Attribution", etc.) could be considered logically harmless, at least insofar as the version number is specified and it is a version newer than 1.0, since attribution has been included in all CCPL types since version 2.0 (see also overview above). However, the latter cannot be assumed to be specialised knowledge, so that an otherwise unambiguous designation such as "CC NC-SA 3.0 pt" may confuse interested users who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. Furthermore, since search engines and algorithms, in case of doubt, only correctly assign versions with "BY" or the long form in full, there are also technical reasons why this information must not be omitted.
22 This also has implications for the standard of care required of the licensee. If this is the first publication and it is obvious that the information is incomplete – for example, because the specific licence type is not named – then anyone who relies on this "licensing" would not be entitled to protection. On the other hand, anyone who finds information that is consistent in terms of content does not have to expect that a mere formal deviation from the original information, such as the incorrect abbreviation of a first name, will be interpreted as a breach of the licence obligations.
23 Accordingly, it is appropriate to regard the following users as licence infringers only if, despite the discrepancy in the origin information , it was obvious to them from the circumstances that there was an attribution error .
24 Furthermore, even with this approach-compliant understanding of the characteristic of found source information, the question still arises as to whether the user who is then (solely) considered a licence violator in this sense, who directly caused the negligent omission, also has to bear only the direct consequences of his own omission. One example is compensation for lost income from bookings due to the lack of recognisability of an author. Or whether the first person to cause the omission is also responsible for the consequences of all subsequent omissions by other users that are adequately causally related to his omission, even if these subsequent users are not themselves considered licence infringers (see above). Here, too, Here, too, the answer can best be derived from the functional idea behind the open content approach as a whole, as this is intended to enable potentially infinite remixing and reuse cycles in the sense of permanently freeing creativity from (what are perceived as disproportionately strong) legal restrictions. It is not apparent that this could be reconciled with an equally potentially infinite liability for subsequent omissions. Therefore, everything speaks in favour of a clear limitation of the liability of an "initial omitter" of source information, based on the limitation of attribution according to the doctrine of the protective purpose of the norm
II. Section 3.a.1.A. The information accompanying the licensed material
25 The information on the licensed material pursuant to Section 3.a.1.A forms the core of the attributionclause and is the part of the origin information that, compared to that provided for in Literae B. and C., has the greatest individuality in terms of content. This section regulates information that varies greatly from licensed work to work or content to content, such as the respective title (up to and including version 3.0, still mandatory to carry over if found
26 The five sub-items structured with lowercase Roman numerals found in section 3.a.1.A are identical in wording for all licence types of CCPL 4.0: Section 3.a.1.A.i.
Section 3.a.1.A.i. Designation of the creator(s), appropriateness
27 The designation of the creator(s) of the licensed material referred to here means, in the case of works within the meaning of Section 2 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), at least the author or authors. This already follows legally from Section 7 in conjunction with Section 13 sentence 1 UrhG. As stated at the outset, the principle to be observed in all information referred to by the CCPL is that – based on the licence text – only the information provided by the licensee within the scope of attribution is to be passed on, which it has found in the information provided by the licensor. Apart from the non-trivial questions this raises with regard to responsibility within the framework of chains of disclosure, the provisions of the UrhG (and, in general, the applicable national law) raise the question of the relationship to the statutory rights of attribution.
28 A final determination as to whether (and how) the author's name should be mentioned or not can only be made in a CCPL if it contains an effective disposition of naming rights by their holder, even if only indirectly by way of effective representation. The reason why this question needs to be asked at all is that, at least according to the wording of the CCPL, the licensor and the author do not necessarily have to be one and the same person:
29 In licence version 3.0, this is particularly evident from the definitions section, where the licensor is listed separately as letter d and the rights holder (original author) as letter e. In version 4.0, the definitions in section 1 still include the licensor, but no longer the rights holder or original author. And even when combining the definitions of "copyright and similar rights" with "licensed rights" and "modified material", it is not clear that the licensor and the holder of genuine exclusive rights must be identical. The main reason for this is that the inseparable connection between the author and the work, as spelt out in the German Copyright Act (UrhG) and other continental European copyright laws, is not prevalent internationally.
30 This leads to the conclusion, with regard to the question of the relationship between the CCPL's attribution requirement and the UrhG's right of attribution, that the information on origin provided can only be considered a final determination by the holder of statutory attribution rights if the case in question involves the author, the creator or the joint owners
31 As a result, a licensee can never be completely sure, either factually or legally, that the or that all those entitled to attribution in the form of the information found have effectively exercised their statutory rights to attribution. Rather , there always remains the risk that attribution rights must also be observed and that , in unconsciously and unintentionally infringed within the scope of CCPL use, with the consequences of Sections 823 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB). However, such constellations are unlikely to be particularly frequent and, depending on the involvement of those entitled to attribution in the processes, there will often also be contributory negligence within the meaning of Section 254 BGB .
32 Due to the strong position of performing artists in the German copyright system, what has been said here also applies comprehensively to them. The term "creator" is not defined in any way in the text of the CCPL, but is completely open-ended and, in its form "creator", is not capitalised or otherwise qualified in the English version of the CCPL either capital letters or otherwise qualified. The translation with "creator" (instead of, for example, "creator" or "author") is intended to take into account the fact that earlier versions of the CCPL used the term "Original Author" as a collective term in order to address both creative and other contributors to the creation of content (see, for example, letter e in the definition section of CCPL version 3.0, which uses the term "rights holder" and includes both natural and legal persons as eligible rights holders within the meaning of the licence). Translation as "creator" would have meant narrowing the scope to the natural creator person
33 Whereas previous versions of the CCPL still used the definition "original author"/"rights holder" to a comprehensive list of possible rights holders, version 4.0 now includes an abstract list of the rights of these actors covered by the licence ("copyright and similar rights") as the linchpin of the definitions in section 1.c.
34 The fact that there is no mention of "related rights" here is not an oversight, but is intended to take account of the fact that the categorisation of different groups of rights varies internationally.
35 This is different in particular in countries with so-called "antiquities laws", such as Italy.
36 It should be noted that creators within the meaning of the clause can initially be any natural or legal persons who hold genuine or derivative exclusive rights within the scope of the Copyright Act, i.e. including moral rights, rights of performing artists, sui generis database producer rights, rights to posthumous works, etc. When compiling the list of creators to be named, the licensor is free to choose from all persons and entities who were adequately causally involved in any way in the creation of the licensed content. It is irrelevant that they must also have certain legal (or contractual) legal positions.
37 In addition, there is also the possibility, already present in earlier licence versions, of attributing the licensed content to others"who are intended to be named ", as it has been called since version 4.0. In version 3.0, there was an inline definition of these additional persons to be named inserted into the attribution clause under the term "attribution recipients" (see, for example, in the BY 3.0 ported for German-speaking countries under 4.b.i.). In version 4.0, a separate term was dispensed with and attribution is now only anchored in the word "intended". This not only saves the inline definition at this point, but is also semantically consistent in view of the expanded creator term. Even without the subordinate clause with the word "intended", Even without the subordinate clause with the word "intended", the licensor would already have a very large group of persons and entities to choose from for attribution. The only ones still missing are those who were not involved in the creation of the licensed content. The subordinate clause clarifies that they too can be intended for attribution.
38 One might now ask whether this creates a kind of two-tier society among those to be named, whereby authors and other holders of legal rights must always be included in the group to be named, while other participants and those who are completely uninvolved are only optional. However, in view of the wording in the introductory sentence of section 3.A.1.a, according to which only information is to be retained "insofar as it was attached to the licensed material by the licensor", it is clear that there are no restrictions for the licensor with regard to the population of the attribution. It can therefore also define only attribution recipients as those to be named, i.e. not in addition to those with exclusive legal rights, but instead of the creative contributors. Similarly, they can leave the attribution group completely empty, so that no name needs to be mentioned at all.
39 As already mentioned above before discussing the term 'creator', this freedom of the licensor is limited by the exercise of statutory rights, above all by Section 13 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG): If a licensor does not provide for attribution for a participating author in the CCPL release (but only for others or even no one), then this only releases users from the obligation to comply with the statutory right of attribution under Section 13 UrhG to the extent that the omitted rights holders have effectively disposed of it. Externally, it will nevertheless rarely be apparent in CCPL release contexts if a licensor does not (only) dispose of its own right under Section 13 UrhG.
40 In substantive terms, there is no overall change compared to the previous version 3.0: even there, the instrument of attribution already gives the licensor comprehensive freedom of choice as to who should be named in the course of the licence's own attribution obligation. This does not appear to have led to any major legal disputes under any version of the CCPL.
41 In contrast, version 3.0 already offered great potential for practical disputes regarding the content of the designation, i.e. the question of how those persons or entities are to be designated that the licensor intends to name, and how far the licensor's creative power extends in this regard. This is also regulated in version 4.0 and summarised in section 3.a.1.A.i (whereas section 3.a, paragraphs 2. and 3. do not concern the content of the source information, but rather the manner in which it is reproduced). In addition to the term "designation", the wording also expressly mentions the pseudonym as potential content of the designation, although the addition of "if designated" is redundant at this point, as the licence already clarifies in the same sentence at the beginning that "if ... supplied" supplied" already clarifies for all indications of origin that what is not found is not to be retained.
42 The point of contention was and is the qualification"in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor". The aspect "[as] requested by the Licensor" is not explicitly included in the previous version 3.0. Rather, the characteristic of appropriateness is only used there as in version 4.0 in section 3.a.2, i.e. as a general requirement for attribution by the licensee. As in the English-language Unported version of the previous version 3.0, the attribution requirements are then also readable in the German port of CCPL 3.0 as a rule example of how such attribution can be done appropriately (cf. link to "by" in section 4.b of BY 3.0 de: "to acknowledge in an (...) appropriate form by (...) stating the following :"
43 However, appropriateness was not clearly defined in any of the versions. It is therefore necessary to assume the general and, as such, fundamental meaning of the term: appropriateness taking into account all circumstances and not reduced to the interests of one side or the other, i.e. neither "appropriate from the author's point of view" nor "appropriate from the user's point of view", but objectively appropriate taking into account all circumstances and interests involved. Based on the overall structure, it is therefore clear in both version 3.0 Unported and the German port that simply reproducing all the information following the lowercase Roman numerals was not sufficient to fulfil the criterion of appropriateness. The origin information listed in version 4.0, as in version 3.0, is rather what must be communicated in one way or another, and only then does the examination stage follow as to whether this overall package of mandatory origin information has been communicated appropriately, with its Janus-faced nature in both directions:
44 Neither may communication that is inappropriately relegated to the background (e.g. due to the inconspicuousness of the origin information, which is not due to the technical context of use) be contrary to the interests of the licensor, nor may communication that is prominent and contrary to the interests of the user be required if it cannot be supported by any objective requirements of the context of use. requirements of the context of use.
45 As already mentioned, this balancing function of the appropriateness criterion is anchored across versions, namely in the previous version 3.0 in section 4.b, once before and once after the list of mandatory origin information i. to iv. In version 4.0, the criterion can be found in section 3.a.2, but there too, not only in sentence 1, but also again in the introduction before the list of mandatory source information. We therefore find mentions of the criterion in both versions in two places places, the first of which is actually redundant because the second clarifies once again that the criterion refers to the information as a whole. The word "reasonable" appears three times in both English/German language versions of both versions of the clause, which is, however, due to linguistic circumstances. Overall, however, this makes it clear how central this feature is across all versions for the CCPL approach.
46 However, at no point does the wording itself, neither in 3.0 nor in 4.0, suggest that appropriateness could (also) refer to the content of what is to be reproduced, i.e. to what the licensor requires in terms of content = text content as a designation. In this context, "content" should not be understood in a purely formal sense – a mere formal deviation is irrelevant, see section above "Requirements for licensing and distribution, basic principle of existing information", margin note 18.
47 Even in the days of version 3.0, some licensors felt entitled to define additional text elements as part of the designation and thus as part of the mandatory attribution information. They then took action against users who had not reproduced these text elements for violating the CCPL attribution requirement. This often involved web addresses. Creatives included these in their CC licence notices, arguing that they were providing a service to users by providing them with the means to access the work. This particularly often concerned web addresses. These were included by creators in their CC licence notices with the argument that, in return for transferring their works to the digital commons, they wanted to ensure that their respective online presence (as a marketing platform) would always be mentioned in the course of the transfer of the works in order to generate additional traffic and receive something "in return" for their contribution to the commons. Some may then object that it is not in line with the appropriateness mentioned in the CCPL licence text to force subsequent users to promote their own website in this way . However, according to the above, the content of the designation within the meaning of the attribution clause was and is not within the scope of the appropriateness criterion. It can therefore be neither appropriate nor inappropriate in this sense to declare the URL of one's own website to be part of one's own copyright designation.
48 From this – and from the wording now included in version 4.0, "in any form required by the licensor " (emphasis added) – one could conclude that a licensor ultimately has carte blanche in defining the content of the designation. However, this is contradicted by the reference to the pseudonym contained in both version 3.0 and 4.0, which cannotbe a string of characters of any length .
49 Rather, it follows directly from the meaning of the word "designation" or, in the English version of the text, "identification": it must therefore be a string of characters that is suitable and intended for the identification of the acting parties (author, rights holder, attribution recipients). As is otherwise the case in the area of moral rights, any type of symbolic representation that can be (re)recognised by people as individually attributable to the author is suitable for this purpose, i.e. including graphic markings beyond conventional characters.
Version 3.0 de: "Acknowledge the rights holder in a form appropriate to the use ."
Version 3.0 Unported: "provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising:"
Version 4.0 international, German translation: "the designation (...) in any (...) form that is appropriate"
Version 4.0 international, English version: "identification (...), in any reasonable manner"
50 According to the wording as a whole, the key factor is rather the standard of appropriateness. This raises the question of which aspects can or must be taken into account by a court when assessing appropriateness. The basic idea behind the entire CC approach certainly provides a rough guide here: It is aimed at simplifying the handling of one's own and third-party It revolves around simplifying the handling of one's own and third-party exclusive rights to "intellectual property", primarily, but not exclusively, in the digital realm and to a level where even legal laymen can select and use legally binding licence agreements with little risk.
51 From this perspective, the content, scope and form of the attribution notice are always inappropriate if they conflict with the aforementioned simplification.
52 Accordingly, longer texts are generally unsuitable, regardless of whether they are promotional or other content. If, for example, a photographer named Pierre wanted to specify that the attribution for his CC-licensed works should be the complete text of the eighth part of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in the translation by Hermann Röhl (beginning with the word "Pierre"), the use of the works would be impossible in practice and there would therefore be no practical functional licensing. The required functional practicability therefore sets a limit on the scope of the designation content. However, extreme examples such as the one above do not say anything about where exactly this limit lies, and the grey area up to that point would still leave a great deal of scope for text constructs in which the conveyance of identity information is only secondary to other characteristics or even takes a back seat to them. A notable example of this A notable example of this is the one already mentioned, in which the licensor declares the web address of its own website to be part of the CC attribution and requires or expects this information to be included with every use of the work, which is intended to generate additional web traffic.
53 However, while the wording of earlier CCPL versions left room for debate as to whether the attribution requirement allows such "enrichment" of the actual (artist's) name with additional information, version 4.0 states that "the name of the creator(s) of the licensed material and others intended to be named" must be mentioned – not "a name" and certainly not "a name of any length and design". Only the form of the designation is therefore expressly left to the discretion of the licensor, but not its content, or at most indirectly, if it is influenced by the form. 54 Accordingly, the licence text must be read at this point
54 Accordingly, the licence text must be read at this point to mean that only such a designation is suitable within the meaning of the clause if its entire or almost entire content is necessary for identification and is regularly and typically used by the designated persons, whether in relation to their works or otherwise. According to this interpretation, a designation that is only used once for a single release under CCPL or only for releases under CCPL, but not beyond that, is therefore unsuitable. In this respect, to stick with the example of the web address already mentioned, a designation content "Franka Meier www.frankameier.de" would be functionally suitable – because it is suitable for identification and, in terms of scope, harmless to the practical usability of the works to be labelled with it – but would only be covered by the attribution obligation if Franka Meier also labels her oeuvre in this way beyond the CCPL release or uses the character string including the web address as a name.
55 The test criterion or control question that can therefore be applied is whether the other components that may be placed alongside the actual name in the civil law sense fall within the scope of protection of the general personal rights of the person concerned or not.
56 If, in this way, the content of the name reference covered by the clause can also be clearly separated, this raises the question of what else could be meant by the "form" that must be respected according to the wording of the clause. However, the parenthetical insertion referring to pseudonyms provides a clear indication However, the parenthetical insertion referring to pseudonyms provides a clear indication of what is meant here:
57 Licensors should retain freedom in the choice of self-designation, and in the first instance, this freedom should simply be adopted as provided by the applicable naming law in other respects – which includes the freedom to use pseudonyms and artistic names worldwide. Nevertheless, the content of the name attribution used and later mandatorily reproduced by licensees must be both suitable and in use for use as a name in the functional sense, see above. Even with regard to the characteristic of the choosable form, everything therefore leads back to the general right of personality and the protection of the right to a name, which the respective legal system offers to all .
58 Therefore, the express obligation to observe the form of the attribution notice does not contradict the aforementioned restrictions regarding its scope (Tolstoy case above) and regarding the additions made to it. Rather , the characteristic of form in this sense falls within the scope of what can generally be considered a name under personality rights. Unless the context of use dictates or at least suggests otherwise, the licensor's wishes regarding the form of the name that he chooses within this framework must be complied with. Since this framework is anything but excessive, there are unlikely to be any significant number of real or conceivable cases in which the clause fails in a practical sense.
59 There remains the aspect of attribution, which may seem somewhat exotic or at least unusual to German copyright lawyers, but which the clause expressly permits. According to the monistic approach of most continental European copyright systems, the genuine authorship of a work cannot be transferred easily, and in some cases not at all. [18]
60 This is already included as a function in earlier versions of the CCPL, albeit in more detailed language. For illustration purposes, reference is made here to the wording of the relevant passage in the version of version 3.0 adapted for the German legal system :
"(...) if the licensor has made an attribution to third parties (e.g. to a foundation, a publishing house or a newspaper) ("attribution recipient") in the rights notice, in the terms of use or in any other appropriate manner, has attributed the work to third parties (e.g. a foundation, a publishing house or a newspaper) ("attribution recipients"), the name or designation of this or these third parties;" (cf. section 4.d.i of the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 de licence)
61 This shows that this involves more than the obligation to also name those who, due to legally regulated circumstances, are also considered authors of a work, primarily co-authors within the meaning of Section 8 UrhG, as well as the group of genuine holders of ancillary copyrights. The fact that they are all eligible for attribution follows from their legally position and therefore does not require this separate mention, but is already covered by "the creator(s) of the licensed material" (and whether the omission of a person entitled to attribution by the licensor itself when drafting the licence notice precludes the effective granting of rights of use is not the issue here).
62 Attribution in this sense is rather a kind of dedication in the colloquial sense: the licensor should be able to dedicate the work or other protected object to another entity with the result that the name of this entity can later be mentioned in accordance with the same rules as that of the authors and holders of ancillary copyrights as soon as use takes place under the CCPL conditions. The origin of this dedication option probably lies in the strong affinity of Creative Commons – as a project and organisation – to the milieu of charitable engagement. Those involved in this milieu may have a very specific desire to place their own work and thus also its results in the form of copyright-protected works in the context of a collective good cause. Understood in this way, the attribution option is a kind of dedication to a good cause. Attributing to an entity that stands for this good cause serves to make this recognisable. The attribution option is therefore a kind of dedication to a good cause.
63 Otherwise, there is no indication that this part of the attribution notice should be subject to different rules than other parts – at least not according to the text of the CCPL (for two special features that arise when German law applies, see the following paragraphs).
64 Here, too, the restrictions mentioned above must apply with regard to the length and suitability of the name or designation of the content. Structurally, however, attribution as part of the attribution notice differs from that of authorship, because authorship is, at least to a large extent, determined by law and, in this respect, is not subject to free assignment by the licensor. This does not apply to attribution. Here, in the absence of legal requirements, any and as many entities as desired can be registered as recipients of attribution. The characteristic of appropriateness sets a length limit here, which has a slightly different effect than in the case of attribution: there, the legal requirement to have made an attributable creative contribution results in a kind of natural maximum number of individuals who can still be considered co-authors for most types of works.
65 In the case of attribution, there is no such limit in law ; accordingly, it is only the licence text itself that ensures that the attribution information does not get out of hand. To give an absurd example similar to the Tolstoy case: If a licensor wanted to attribute a work in the CCPL attribution notice to all 365,000 members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, this would be just as inappropriate under the CCPL as including the complete Tolstoy text as part of the name. Whereas in the Tolstoy case, appropriateness was limited to the length of the designation of the one creator or rights holder, in the attribution it primarily limits the number of persons named. A licensor has less freedom to determine the length and content of the individual entity from the outset if they do not want to run the risk that later readers of the licence notice will no longer understand who is meant.
66 However, the fact that an explicit attribution option is included in the licence text at all points to another special feature compared to the information on copyright or rights ownership, which always arises when German law forms the the applicable framework: the entities included in the attribution do not participate in moral rights by law, neither derived from Art. 2 (1) in conjunction with Art. 1 (1) of the Basic Law nor via § 13 UrhG. The licence text is therefore the only basis for the enforceability of the attribution. While the attribution of the author's name is thus secured multiple times in the CC cosmos, both legally and contractually, serious doubts in individual cases about the conclusion of the CCPL licence agreement or the validity of the clause in 3.a.1.A.i destroy the enforceability of an attribution.
67 The second peculiarity against the background of the German UrhG arises from the fact that only natural persons can be authors within the meaning of § 7 UrhG,
68 This considerable freedom of design, which lies solely with the licensor, means that attribution can take place even without or against the will of the attribution recipient and can then, in turn, constitute an infringement of name and trademark rights. Whether this paradoxical constellation, in which it is not the violation of a naming obligation that leads to the infringement of absolute property rights, but rather its establishment that subsequently leads to the ineffectiveness of the attribution requirement, remains to be answered – but is likely to be very rare in practice and therefore hardly relevant.
69 There is no apparent reason why the length of the attribution that can be specified should be different from that of the author designation discussed above. Accordingly, this also limits the maximum conceivable number of attribution recipients. An attribution to all contributors to the Wikipedia project, listing all names, would be inappropriate because it would be far too extensive and thus involve significantly more effort than moderate attribution. An attribution to "The Wikipedians" or "All contributors to Wikipedia", on the other hand, would not be inappropriate and would even be sufficiently specific to make sense .
Section 3.a.1.A.ii. Copyright notice
70 The copyright notice referred to in Section 3.a.1.A.ii does not mean the (repeated) naming of the author, the creator or other persons who created the content or to whom it was attributed, but rather the naming of those who hold the exclusive rights to the content. Under German copyright law and also under the legal systems of continental Europe, these will usually be the same persons whose names are already required under clause i., but this is not mandatory under Anglo-American law in particular. There, the original right of authorship can also be transferred in its entirety. [21]
71 Overall, according to the CCPL concept, there are therefore up to three groups involved on the provider side, which do not necessarily have to be identical: 1. those who created the content themselves, 2. the owners of rights to the content who are not also the creators, and 3. the licensors (as disposers). As already mentioned above, a separation of the first and second groups in the case of copyright-protected works is only possible in special cases, such as universal succession to the heirs
72 However, collective rights management by collecting societies is – at least under German law – not comprehensive in terms of its function and approach, but refers to rights that can only be asserted by collecting societies
73 As a result, in this country and in most other countries, the collecting society model is therefore rather unsuitable for the CCPL constellation of a licensor that differs from the creator and the rights holder. It is therefore most conceivable on an individual contract basis, where all rights holders have entrusted third parties with the management of all rights of use by means of a legal transaction. This is rather rare.
74 Furthermore, within the CCPL, neither the attribution clause nor anywhere else provides for the licensors to be named as such. Who exactly the licensor is therefore often enough can only be determined from the context in which CC-licensed content is found – and since such content is supposed to be able to "migrate" through the network by being copied, the context can change quickly and deliberately. According to the licence terms, only the names of the content creators and the owners of the rights to it must be passed on, but not those of the licensors, and in case of doubt, the latter does not happen. Most people are probably unaware of the possibility of a separate group of licensors, even though it is provided for in the CCPL. Rather, it is taken for granted that the parties named in clauses i. and ii. are also the licensors. This is true in the vast majority of cases, but where it is not, a group of actors emerges that quickly becomes invisible in the course of distribution .
75 This invisibility is not merely a nuisance, but has tangible functional implications, because: According to Section 2.a.5.A, each subsequent recipient of the licensed material automatically receives another contract offer from the licensor, and this automatic re-licensing is essential to the entire public licence approach. And as unproblematic as it is to recognise that licences are offered to any third party via an offerta ad incertas personas, it is unusual for there to be additional uncertainty on the part of the provider regarding personnel.
76 German civil law only provides for effective representation if it is obvious.
77 However, the protective purpose of the principle of disclosure in Sections 164 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB) must be taken into account : The business partner – in the case of a CCPL, the licensee – should be protected from remaining in the dark about the fact that the person acting on their behalf is not the represented party whose legal will and interests are at stake. However, the constellation of the invisible licensor of a CCPL is precisely the opposite: Only the interests. However, the constellation of the licensor of a CCPL becoming invisible is precisely the opposite: only the represented party is visible and remains so (cf. point i.). The licensee does not have a need for protection comparable to the situation of concealed representation, because those whose legal will and interests are at stake (who created the material and hold the rights to it) are well known to the licensee thanks to the obligation to name them. In other words, the licensee does not really care who exactly is granting them In other words, the licensee can largely be indifferent as to who exactly grants them the benefit of the CCPL permissions, as long as they can understand in whose name. As a result, the possible invisibility and unknown status of the initial licensor can therefore be regarded as unproblematic in terms of representation law. 78
78 The fact that the identity of the licensor cannot be completely irrelevant to the licensee is because, in case of doubt, they must have an interest in being able to assess whether the party granting the licence is highly likely to actually have all the rights covered by the CCPL at their disposal. However, this is generally excluded under German copyright law due to the exclusion of bona fide acquisition of rights of use
79 In terms of content, the copyright notice usually contains the familiar combination of the copyright symbol "©", the name of the rights holder and the year in which the original right was created. Under German copyright law, this type of marking is not required in order to obtain full copyright protection. The same applies worldwide in principle on the basis of Art. 5 (2) RBÜ. In some countries, however, including the USA, this information is still a factor in obtaining full copyright protection with regard to damages in the event of infringement.
80 It should also be noted that, thanks to clause ii, the famous © and the graphically related double C in a circle, to which Creative Commons has the trademark rights, often appear side by side
Section 3.a.1.A.iii. Reference to this Public Licence
81 The required reference to this licence means the recognisable statement which CC licence variant (exactly) contains the applicable usage rules for the material in question. These do not have to be the only valid rules, as parallel licensing under several Public Licences or several other sets of rules is possible under the CCPL (cf. Section 8.c; Wikipedia, for example, is also released in parallel under CC BY-SA and the GFDL), but the recognisable intention of the licensor must be that the rules contained in the aforementioned CCPL can be selected as a coherent set and then apply. How this is specifically expressed linguistically, graphically or otherwise symbolically is left to the licensor. The decisive factor is that it is understandable from the perspective of reasonable persons without special knowledge when they encounter the material .
82 Section 3.a.1.A.iii clearly duplicates Section 3.a.1.C, which also regulates the reference to the applicable CCPL, but in a qualifying manner.
Section 3.a.1.A.iv. Reference to the disclaimer
83 The disclaimer referred to here is solely that of Section 5 (see wording "the disclaimer" or in English "the disclaimer" instead of "a" or "an"). It is therefore not possible to establish exclusion provisions drafted by a licensor itself which would then have to be passed on.
84 Clause iv expressly mentions only the warranty disclaimer in the English version and only the liability disclaimer in the German version. However, the fact that clause iv refers to the entire However, the fact that clause iv refers to the entire section 5 is ultimately clear from the fact that its subsections do not have their own headings and therefore "Disclaimer of Warranties" in the English text reflects the section heading that covers the exclusion of warranty and liability.
85 To what extent and when Section 5, and in particular its subsection b, is effective under German law governing general terms and conditions, see VorCCPL margin note 9. Depending on the legal system, however, the prominence with which the exclusion is indicated may be decisive in this respect. Clause iv ensures that a separate reference to the exclusion must be passed on – provided that the licensor considered it necessary and attached it to the release information (cf. basic principle of existing information, margin note 18). However, this attachment is often not included.
Section 3.a.1.A.v. To the extent reasonably practicable, a URI or hyperlink to the licensed material
86 Clause v requires the transmission of a hyperlink or URI specifically intended for the material. The latter can be an internet address (https://...) or, for example, an identifier such as the ISBN of a book, the DOI of a scientific article or something similar (see further considerations on the subject of URIs below in the commentary on section 3.a.1.C).
87 However, this provision only becomes relevant if this information has been deliberately made part of the CCPL release information. The mere fact that the material can be found on the internet and is therefore necessarily linked to some URL is not sufficient in itself to trigger the obligation. It is therefore not necessary to cite the URL where the content can be found when using any CC-licensed content found online, but only if the licensor expressly requires this .
88 The restriction "to the extent reasonably practicable" is, by its very wording, not a mere repetition of the principle of appropriateness in Section 3.a(2). Since the principle of appropriateness isalso strongly determined by practicability factors, the explicit reference to practicability in clause v can only be understood as formulating an even stronger requirement that is more dependent on the circumstances and thus, in case of doubt, less stringent than that of appropriateness (cf. margin note 43 on this point). Accordingly, it is no longer reasonably practicable to specify a URI if this leads to additional technical processing steps being required processing steps or if, due to the additional space it takes up, the display has to be specially adapted for CC content. Ultimately, this remains a question to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but there are likely to be very few cases in which the mere fact that a content URI has not been carried over can be used to justify the entire licence being invalidated.
III. Section 3.a.1.B. Identification and preservation of the change history
89 The clause stipulates that, in addition to the attribution notice, licensees must also identify changes to the licensed material in the form of a note or preserve the identification by adopting corresponding notes found from previous licensees.
90 As with all information in Section 1, the basic principle of existing information applies here as well (see margin note 18 above). This means, first of all, that existing third-party information about changes made to the licensed material must be continued one-to-one as found in the licence notice. Section 3.a.1.B does not contain any restriction to appropriate information, as can be found in Section 3.a.1.A. However, the reasons that give rise to the appropriateness criterion in the information provided in Section 3.a.1.A (see above, para. 43) also apply to the changes to be made. In particular, from a functional point of view, information about changes also represents information that can accumulate over time, very similar to copyright information across several processing stages. Furthermore, the change information found does not originate from the licensor, so that the latter's comparatively greater need for protection does not constitute the benchmark. Accordingly, the obligation to provide change information must also be regarded as limited to what is comprehensible in terms of content and still manageable in terms of scope .
91 The purpose of the obligation to provide change information is primarily to protect the licensor or other persons who created the content if they are not identical to the licensor. In the case of the use of a CCPL with an ND clause, at least for non-creative modifications, and in the case of all other licence types, even for comprehensive creative editing. They should be protected from being associated with a modified version of the same content that they did not create. The obligation is thus a further consequence of moral rights in the CCPL cosmos and, together with the no-endorsement clause (see section 2.a.6) and the negative right of attribution in section 3, which is only declaratory in nature, a conglomerate of precautions in section 13 sentence 2 UrhG, form a conglomerate of precautions designed to offer a certain degree of protection against the possible negative effects of releasing content. The aim is to provide ways of keeping at least one's own person somewhat distanced from unpleasant, but nevertheless licence-compliant forms of subsequent use.
92 The change must always be reported if changes affecting the impression of the licensed material have been made. This applies to both copyrighted and ancillary copyrighted material, as it is subject to statutory integrity protection and therefore may not be changed at all without licensing permission – at least insofar as the change affects the nature of the work or other material in terms of the way it appears to viewers. The direct reference to statutory integrity protection is stated by the CCPL at the very beginning of its text in the definition of "Modified Material" in Section 1.a, sentence 1, but would also apply without this rather declaratory passage. In case of doubt, a change in this sense therefore exists in all cases where an adaptation or redesign within the meaning of Section 23 In case of doubt, a change in this sense therefore exists in all those cases in which an adaptation or transformation within the meaning of Section 23 (1) sentence 1 UrhG can be affirmed. The equally legally required, copyright-friendly narrow interpretation
93 Whether purely technical changes that are not perceptible to the senses and therefore cannot affect the effect of the material on viewers must also be disclosed is less clear in the absence of a comparable legal background. Insofar as Section 23 (3) UrhG makes these exempt from approval, this naturally also applies to use in accordance with CCPL. However, the circumstances mentioned there do not cover the entire spectrum of typical transformative uses.
94 The CCPL makes it clear in Section 2.a.4 that purely technical changes are generally permitted for all licence types, including the restrictive CCPL with ND clause, which is to be regarded as an effective provision. This does not say anything about the obligation to identify technical changes.
95 If they were to be explicitly identified in every case in accordance with Section 3.a.1.B, such information would have to be provided when using virtually any type of content management system (CMS). This is because these typically make at least resolution changes as soon as such material is fed into them, typically automatically as part of the publication process and without feedback to or active approval by those feeding the material. The same applies to audio content with regard to bit rates and other parameters that are automatically changed during feeding. If necessary, a CMS also adjusts the If necessary, a CMS also adjusts the file format of uploaded media content to one used internally, even if the respective upload function accepts different file formats in this respect.
96 The replacement of manually built HTML pages by CMS-based websites as the mainstream was already largely complete at the time of the creation of CCPL 1.0. And there does not appear to be, or ever to have been, a common CMS that provides or provided even the possibility of automatically identifying technical changes made during (and after) the feed process . If purely technical changes were subject to disclosure in every case under the CCPL, large parts of CC usage on the internet would be in breach of licence – including those on platforms such as Flickr and Wikimedia Commons, which are regarded by Creative Commons as an organisation and virtually all CC-affiliated communities as prime examples of how the CC idea works. The CCPL would then also be structurally very unfriendly to technology, which, according to section 2.a.4, is not what it is supposed to be. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that section 3.a.1.B could be interpreted in this way.
97 The change must be indicated consistently in the case of clearly perceptible changes, even in the case of merely minor cropping of image material, minor shortening of audio and video material and the like. It is also clear that technical changes are no longer purely technical if they become noticeable, for example if the resolution of image material is reduced to such an extent that there is visible pixelation.
98 The indication of change is also not superfluous in cases where a licensee makes creative changes, thereby joining the group of authors or rights holders and being named there – which can be understood as an incidental indication that changes must have been made, so that a further indication may be superfluous. Only when there is a "sufficient distance" in the sense of Section 23 (1) sentence 2 UrhG from the pre-existing work can it be assumed, also in the sense of the CCPL, that the legally relevant connection between the works has been comprehensively severed. The consequence of such severance is that neither the naming of the authors of earlier works that provided the inspiration for the new work as part of the information required under Section 3.a.1.A nor an indication of change in accordance with letter B is required (or even makes sense).
99 If no modification has been made, no indication is necessary, and not a negative or an affirmation of the material's unchanged status. For a time, this was understood differently, at least according to the German translation of CCPL version 4.0, as the English "if" in letter B had initially been translated as "ob" (whether). As a result, the passage could also be read linguistically to mean that it must be stated in every case whether a change has been made or not. The English "if" can have this meaning, but the word "whether" would also be available (and more precise) in English. After a user inquired about this in 2020 , the German CC chapter and Creative Commons clarified that the "if" in the English text does not have the meaning of "whether", but rather "in case". Accordingly, the text of the German translation was corrected at this point and this was made transparent and documented in the usual manner.
100 As far as the content of the information is concerned, since licence version 4.0, no further details can be found. Up to and including version 3.0, examples are given of what is meant by change information. For example, the corresponding clause 4.a. of CCPL 1.0 already contains the parenthetical addition "(e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author")".
101 The first question that arises is whether the omission of these examples in the course of versioning means that, as of version 4.0, only a statement to the effect of "Yes, something has been changed" is required, without specifying the change in more detail. In this regard, it is worth taking a look at the two text blocks "Considerations for Licensors" and "Considerations for the General Public", which precede all CCPL version 4.0 as a kind of preamble (they are not, however, part of the licence text in the narrower sense, which only begins with the licence designation and the introductory paragraph directly following it).
102 In the text block "Considerations for the Public," the fifth and sixth sentences state:
"A licensor may also have special requests, such as requiring that all changes be marked or described. Although this is not mandatory under our licences, you should endeavour to comply with such requests whenever possible."
103 This makes it very clear that the descriptive information on changes, which was still a mandatory part of the change information up to version 3.0, is only optional from version 4.0 onwards. In order to comply with section 3.a.1.B, from version 4.0 onwards, the simple addition of "modified" within the licence notice is sufficient. Compared to the mandatory descriptions required by older licence versions, this not only simplifies practical handling, but also presumably protects the authors of the source material even better. The simple statement "modified" is not only easier for users, as the addressees of the licence notice, to understand than lengthy explanations of the nature of the modification, but it also draws attention directly to the reason why the previous authors to be named are no longer fully responsible for the current state of the material: it has been modified.
104 However , due to the continuing possibility of providing more detailed information on the nature, extent, etc. of the changes made, two questions remain:
105 Firstly, there is the question of the permissible scope of the optional descriptive information about changes. Here, similar rules will have to apply as for the author designation and attribution. The length of the optional information will therefore be strictly limited by considerations of appropriateness and, above all, by practical manageability.
106 Secondly, the question arises as to whether the descriptive information on changes made, which is clearly permissible but not mandatory for the person making the changes, must nevertheless be passed on by subsequent licensees – or whether the optional nature of this information violates or undermines the basic principle of the obligation to preserve existing information. One argument in favour of such a violation could be that this information often originates from someone who is not one of the licensors or the initial creators of the content and, according to the logic of the CCPL, is not obliged to provide it. One argument in favour of such a breach could be that this information often originates from someone who is not one of the licensors or the initial creators of the content and, according to the logic of the CCPL, is not as worthy of protection as the latter. However, the wording of Section 3.a.1.B suggests otherwise. The command "and retain all previous change information" would make little sense if it meant that only the one piece of information "changed" had to be passed on. In particular, the word "all" makes it clear that other, more detailed change information must also be passed on as found. This makes the limitation on the length of such information discussed in the previous paragraph all the more important. Longer explanations of the order and technique, the tools used and the intention behind the modification of the material are inappropriate as soon as they are likely to compromise the manageability of the CCPL. Longer explanations of the order and technique used, the tools employed and the intention behind the changes to the material are prohibited as inappropriate if they are likely to significantly restrict the manageability of the CCPL information. There is no question that limited manageability can arise, particularly over several stages of change. 107 Despite all the optionality, it is therefore necessary – in this respect, once again referring to the appropriateness factor from clause 2 of the attribution clause – to limit the content of the CCPL information.
107 Despite all optionality, the content of the modification information beyond the mandatory indication "modified" must necessarily be as economical and generic as possible, in this respect again resorting to the factor of appropriateness from clause 2 of the attribution clause. Possible indications include "adapted", "remix of works X, Y, Z", "translated into German", "set to music" and similar.
108 As an aside, we would like to mention the slightly different regulatory situation in licence versions up to and including 3.0:
109 Here, too, there is an obligation to continue to provide information about changes as found. However, up to licence version 3.0, the content of this information is not merely optional and descriptive, but must mandatorily contain more than a simple "modified". It is obvious that this – like any kind of free text entry – increases the scope for interpretation of what is wrong and what is right in terms of the licence, and thus also increases the susceptibility to errors in everyday use, is obvious and was certainly one of the reasons why descriptive information is no longer mandatory from version 4.0 onwards .
110 All previous versions contain the examples already reproduced above in the form of a parenthetical addition. However, these two examples refer to creative and, moreover, particularly complex changes (undoubtedly adaptations within the meaning of Section 23 of the Copyright Act), which give the impression that simpler changes do not need to be specified. However, there is no other evidence of this, and it would also be very difficult to draw a manageable line between complex changes that need to be described and negligible simple changes.
IV. Section 3.a.1.C. Information about this licence
111 Section 3.a.1.C requires that, when distributing the material, it must be made clear that it is subject to this licence, i.e. that it may be used under its terms and conditions, and that either the full text of the licence must be provided or its permanent unique identifier (Uniform Resource Identifier) or a hyperlink to it.
112 This does not mean that this licence must be the only relevant usage regime. Rather, parallel licensing under several public licences is possible and quite common. Individual agreements may also exist alongside the CCPL, cf. commentary on sections 6.c and 7 (no additional restrictions may be imposed downstream, cf. provision "Subsequent recipients" in section 2.a.5.A).
113 The required designation in the first part of the sentence is a duplication of section A.iii, which repeatedly leads to confusion. The only identifiable purpose is to emphasise the importance of this identification and localisation information in the form of a separate paragraph, at the same level of structure as the entire set of copyright information. However, the content of section 3.a.1.C would be functionally identical and could easily be accommodated in section 3.a.1.A.iii.
114 The importance of this information lies in the fact that a legal tool designed for decentralisation, such as a public licence, is urgently dependent on the availability of its regulatory statements at all times for every party concerned – and public licences always address the general public as a whole. 115 For ideal access to information, it is best if they are also available in their entirety at every point where their subject matter (in this case, the
115 For ideal access to information, it should also appear in its entirety at every point where its subject matter (in this case, the licensed content) can be found. Therefore, the first option mentioned in the second part of the sentence is to include the entire licence text.
116 This does not refer to the simplified and short "Commons Deed" that accompanies every CCPL (see introduction, para. 27), but to the actual licence text. Due to the practical difficulties arising from its length, this option is almost never chosen in practice. It is only realistic in a few scenarios and can also be seen as a nod to the world of free and open source software licences, which, as is well known, served as a model for the CC approach and in which the delivery of the full text is also common.
117 The second option, specifying the Uniform Resource Identifier, i.e. the formally fixed identifier of the CCPL in question, is used much more frequently than full text delivery. However, it is almost always misunderstood to mean that only the internet address of the licence text (on the servers operated by Creative Commons) – i.e. the licence URL according to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol. However, the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is only one of two things meant by the term "URI".
118 Another URI is the Uniform Resource Name, i.e. a permanently unique identifier for the licence. Probably the best-known example of a URN is the globally and permanently unique International Standard Book Number, or ISBN for short. The URN of this comment, for example, is urn:ISBN:X-XXXX-XXXX-X.[FR1] In science, so-called permanent object identifiers (DOI) are also used, which, for example, permanently and uniquely identify other scientific sources in scientific papers. For example, the article "Open licences for research data – Legal assessment and practicality of common licence models" by P. Brettschneider, A. Axtmann, E. Böker and D. v. Suchodoletz
Klimpel, Paul: Free knowledge thanks to Creative Commons licences: Consequences, risks and side effects of the condition "non-commercial – NC", Berlin, 2012, <urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3–440662>.
119 The article itself can be cited clearly and permanently via https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/5749 – i.e. via an electronic reference that is a URL (https://...) containing a URN (doi.org/...) and is therefore a URI for both reasons.
120 The main difference between a URN and a URL is therefore that a URN does not contain any "location information" and therefore does not become incorrect if the storage location of a resource changes subsequently or if it is no longer available at some point. However, this is also its major disadvantage, because a URN always requires a further localisation information. The doi.org service solves this problem for the DOIs stored there, The doi.org service solves this problem for DOIs stored there, while the above-mentioned URN with the ISBN it contains does not. In this case, the ISBN = the URN must be entered in a further step using a search tool such as a search engine or a library catalogue in order to find the storage location of the resource.
121 For the protective purpose of the CC requirement to specify the URI, i.e. the formally unique identifier, is also satisfied if the licence designation is given in the correct short form with all the necessary information and the internationally standardised abbreviations for the licence terms, e.g. "Creative Commons BY 2.0 Generic". This was already confirmed in August 2015 in the USA by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
122 This is to be agreed with. There are repeated attempts to use licence texts derived from the CCPL but adapted according to one's own ideas under the designation "Creative Commons licence" on the internet. However, Creative Commons uses trademark law very consistently to prevent such misleading actions that undermine the extremely important standardisation . As a result, web searches for the various CC licence abbreviations reliably lead to the correct licence text pages, albeit sometimes via short detours.
123 Creative Commons has deliberately opted for internationally uniform abbreviations for the licence modules that are independent of linguistic differences (BY, SA, NC, ND – see above, para. 17). Provided that the combination of the abbreviation "CC" and the relevant licence modules and version number (and, in the case of ported licence variants, a comprehensible country designation) specifies which licence terms are to apply, these are clearly identifiable for everyone. This serves the interests of all parties involved, in particular the protection interests of the licensors.
124 A label that is as easy as possible to implement is also in line with the enabling objective of Creative Commons licences (cf. the principle of appropriateness in section 2, cf. above, paras. 43 and 50): In certain usage constellations – think of the presentation of a text on the radio – it would not only be unrealistic to require that the full name of the licence always be read aloud (e.g. "Creative Commons Attribution – ShareAlike, Version three point zero, United Kingdom"). Rather, the CC abbreviations exist precisely so that this is not necessary.
125 However, a reference that is too unspecific, such as "licensed under Creative Commons", is in no way sufficient as a URI.
126 If the licensor mentions the abbreviations but not the version number, this will generally be interpreted to mean that the respective content is subject to the version of the licence type identified by the abbreviation that is current at the time of use.
127 It is even considered best practice to always refer to the latest version of a standard licence, although this should be done as explicitly as possible rather than simply omitting the version information. Creative Commons and other licence curating organisations support this best practice, not least by maintaining the fundamental character of the six licence types across the various versions and, in the course of versioning, interfering as little as possible with their core statements. However, this does not mean that the licensee can refrain from specifying the version number even if they have found one, as this would make the release decision incompletely traceable. Anyone who releases something under CC BY-SA 4.0 is not saying that it should also be usable under a possible later version of BY-SA.
128 With regard to special information such as country names in ported licence versions, the same applies to licensors as with regard to version numbers. If no special information is provided, in case of doubt, the basic version of the respective CCPL is meant, i.e. the English-language text which, up to and including version 2.0, is marked with the addition "Generic" and in version 3.0 with "Unported". Since there will be no more ports from version 4.0 onwards and all language-specific versions are considered translations of one and the same basic version
129 This also applies to the additions "Generic" and "Unported" in earlier versions, which can therefore also be omitted by licensees without resulting in any loss of information. However, this does not apply to country designations. If a licensee finds such designations, they must be carried over, as the ported versions are independent contracts compared to Generic/Unported. In this respect, it has become customary to use abbreviations based on the ICANN national top-level domains instead of written-out country names such as "Germany" or "Deutschland", i.e. "de" or "DE", for Italy "it" or "IT", etc. Creative Commons itself also uses such abbreviations in its licence URLs. Here, therefore, it is even acceptable to allow licensees to shorten a special designation such as "Germany" to "de".
130 In the resulting character string, one can easily recognise the same thing that is required as a "reference to this Public Licence" in A.iii. This results in a double duplication: Both A.iii and C. in the URN variant require the statement "This work is licensed under..." and then the schematic licence designation.
131 Probably also because of their far greater practical usefulness, URLs, unlike URNs, are familiar to many, and therefore the 2nd option "URI" in section 3.a.1.C is usually understood to mean the licence URL. The URL for the main Wikipedia licence CC BY-SA 4.0 international is, for example, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en.
132 Creative Commons has indicated in the past that it assumes that the Deed URL, i.e. the simplified summary that exists for each CCPL, is sufficient as a URL within the meaning of section 3.a.1.C. This statement follows the idea that the Deed, as the "human-readable" This statement follows the idea that the Deed, as the "human-readable" of three layers, is an integral part of the licence. Such a fixed connection could possibly be assumed if the Deed, as a preamble, were merged with the licence text referred to by CC as "Legal Code" to form a single body of text. However, on the CC web server, these are separate HTML pages that merely refer to each other via hyperlinks. CC itself also emphasises in various places that only the Legal Code is binding and therefore decisive for the granting of rights.
133 Nevertheless, the CCPL web pages on the Creative Commons servers are so conspicuously linked to those of the associated deeds that there would in fact be a contradiction in the assessment of the URN option in Section 3.a.1. C (see above) if a hyperlink to a deed were not considered sufficient: For if it is sufficient to specify a URN such as "CC BY-SA 2.0", which must first be entered into a search engine in order to find the actual resource licence text, then it must ultimately also be sufficient to specify the internet address of the deed from which the licence text can be accessed with just one click. Accordingly, the URL requirement of Section 3.a.1.C is to be regarded as fulfilled even if only the URL of the deed and not that of the actual licence text, i.e. the legal code, is provided.
134 A URL is only complete if it includes the preceding technical protocol specification "https://", whereby the variant without "s" that was previously common with HTTP, i.e. only "http://", is automatically redirected to the corresponding https address and thus remains permissible despite the network-wide switch to HTTPS that has taken place in the meantime (presumably). Overall, the option of specifying the URL is always recommended if there is not enough space to provide the full text and the functionality of a Overall, the option of specifying the URL is always recommended if there is not enough space for the full text and the functionality of a link (see following section) is not available, for example when printing the licence notice on an audio carrier.
135 The third option is probably the most common on the internet, namely setting a hyperlink to the licence text. It differs from specifying the URL in that it is clickable, which then directly opens the licence text, and can be combined with it. In this case, the link text and link address are identical and correspond to the URL. However, a different link text such as "link", "here" or even "licence" is also permissible, which may be advisable for reasons of space, for example.
136 The decisive factor is that, without any further steps, the browser is prompted to call up the licence text. Based on the wording, it is not entirely clear whether the website that is then called up must necessarily be the relevant one on the CC server (see above for the URL), or whether it may also be permissible to link to the licence text on another page. That it must also be identical to the one on the There is no doubt that it must also be identical to the one on the CC web server. However, the other server used must also remain available until the end of the protection period for the licensed content. Ultimately, this option is therefore not recommended, as it can only be advantageous in a few usage scenarios, such as use within strictly shielded intranets. The fact that it is permissible under the licence despite all its disadvantages simply stems from the fact that it does not contradict the wording and can also be seen as a special form of full-text delivery within closed systems, i.e. the first option mentioned above in section 3.a.1.C.
V. Reference to the unauthorised distribution of modified material (only for variants with ND clause)
137 In the CC licence variants BY-ND and BY-NC-ND, Section 1 contains an additional sentence. This clarifies that modified material based on this CCPL alone may not be distributed. Although this is already clear from Section 2.a.1.B and Section 4, it is emphasised once again in this prominent position – presumably primarily with a view to interested users who are not very versed in reading contracts. However, the wording "in accordance with the present Public Licence" indicates that separate and additional permissions to distribute the results of transformative use are nevertheless possible (see commentary on Section 7.b).
E. Section 3.a.2. Form of attribution
138 Sentence 1 of clause 2 is the central anchor of the principle of appropriateness within the attribution clause, but does not refer only to attribution in the narrow sense according to 3.a.1.A.i., where the criterion is also additionally anchored, but covers all information in the licence notice as a superordinate unit.
139 As already explained in clause 1, the interpretation is determined by the enabling intention behind the CC approach and the entire methodology of this type of standard licence: the aim is to obstacles that arise either from exclusivity rights that are too broad and automatically applicable depending on the context, or from the fact that only very few groups are able to deal with these legal positions in practice – such as companies in the copyright industries and specialised law firms. Accordingly, anything that simplifies the handling of the relevant intellectual property regulations (and thus indirectly also the handling of the respective content) will always be considered appropriate in the sense of the CCPL, and not only for professionally trained persons, but also for knowledgeable legal laypersons.
140 With regard to this ultimately very large and diffuse target group, however, it should be noted that it is in the nature of intellectual property law that there are limits to what is generally understandable and usable. It is likely impossible to formulate legal tools such as licences and waivers in such an accessible way that even those with no prior knowledge can use them without error. To achieve this, every CC-licensed piece of content would have to be accompanied by a short course on "Copyright and media law for beginners", preferably also for use outside electronic environments. It is therefore also a matter of enabling if, as a benchmark in terms of the appropriateness criterion of the attribution clause, one uses the comprehension ability and recipient horizon of an average adult user without special legal knowledge, but who has a basic idea of what exclusive rights are.
141 With regard to further aspects of the principle of appropriateness, see also above from para. 43 on point 1.
142 The second half of sentence 1, together with sentence 2, explicitly specifies the principle of appropriateness with regard to the medium, tool and context of use relevant in each individual case. It is clear from the enabling intention behind all open content approaches that the obligations to name the author must not counteract this intention.
143 However, if there were only one or a few ways in which attribution could be permissibly made, there would be many contexts of use in which use would be practically impossible – namely, where the few ways of attribution are not feasible with reasonable effort . If, for example, every half-sentence in a Wikipedia article had to be accompanied by a visible indication of who wrote it, Wikipedia articles would no longer be readable. Even if footnotes were used for this purpose, the online encyclopaedia would be virtually unusable. It would be so overloaded with references that the content references would eventually be lost attribution references over time, and increasingly so with each iteration of an article. And, of course, flexibility in the ways of making attribution visible is also a factor in the technological openness of the licences and thus in their future viability. No one can know today what attribution methods might exist in the future for types of use that are not yet known. It is possible that users will eventually be able to display such information via augmented reality or have it fed directly into their consciousness via a neural interface. It is possible that users will eventually be able to display such information via augmented reality or have it fed directly into their consciousness via a neural interface. As strict as the CCPL is when it comes to the obligation to name the source, it must be flexible on the other hand with regard to implementation.
144 This does not mean arbitrariness, but rather that the licences primarily want to incorporate the attribution methods already established for each medium via a general clause and declare them permissible. Otherwise, separate versions of the CCPL would be required for use on the internet, in films, on stage, etc., or an extremely long clause would be needed that covers all common usage types. Otherwise, separate versions of the CCPL would be required for use on the internet, in films, on stage, etc., or an extremely long clause would be needed that would cover all common types of attribution and then, in case of doubt, would always have large gaps.
145 The appropriateness of attribution with regard to the medium, means and context of use can thus be determined primarily on the basis of customary practice and, in case of doubt, can also be proven. In In abstract terms, the following applies: if there is a customary attribution method for a medium, such as the credits in a film, then in case of doubt, this method is decisive. If, with regard to the medium, means or context used, no single attribution method can be considered customary, or if several methods are customary, there is a choice between these customary methods. If, on the other hand, it is customary not to attribute at all, this is still required in cases of doubt, and there is a choice between the available methods, as there are no customary methods in this case. The flexibility of the CCPL with regard to how attribution is carried out is therefore limited by the question of whether attribution is required: in cases of doubt, attribution methods must be sought, even where attribution is generally uncommon.
146 The classic examples of attribution permitted under the CCPL are therefore initially those that are already known: for films and moving images, the credits at the beginning and/or, above all, at the end; for pieces of music on carrier media, the carriers themselves or the respective covers, booklets, etc.; for music pieces online and in streams, the sections of the respective service where details about composers, performers, labels, etc. are already provided; for long texts, the corresponding pages of the book or magazine; for illustrations, directly in these or, if necessary, in a central list of illustrations.
147 Equally classic are those examples where it is regularly unclear how to proceed: when used in a radio broadcast, for example, it would have a major impact on the course of the programme if the complete CC licence notice had to be read out before or after each track. A long reading block at the end of the programme would hardly be any better. However, this cannot mean that attribution does not have to take place at all. However, this does not mean that attribution does not have to take place at all. Rather, alternative channels should be used, such as entries available on the broadcaster's website in parallel to radio programmes. Such difficulties are naturally even greater in the case of live formats, although these typically also have secondary channels on websites or social media nowadays. In addition, platforms such as YouTube now offer easily controllable functions for displaying references to further information at exactly the relevant point in the video or even in the live stream. Making use of these to fulfil the CCPL attribution requirements is perfectly reasonable.
148 Depending on the medium, it may also be a solution if the mandatory information of the CC licence notice is contained in the corresponding metadata categories of the released media files. Then this information "travels" with the released material through the network, so to speak. However, in this form, it is rather difficult for many viewers to find, because many internet users are unaware of the existence of such file metadata. In addition, in most cases, additional steps must be taken to make metadata visible, such as calling up submenus or special screen dialogues. This is then regularly no longer sufficient to meet the intention of the CCPL attribution clause, which is to make the terms of use as immediately recognisable as possible. In addition, many online services and content management systems automatically interfere with file metadata without this being recognisable or known to their users. Therefore, the direct embedding of CC licence information in file metadata is by no means a permanently stable fusion with the content. Accordingly, it can only be sufficient in exceptional cases within the meaning of section 2.
149 When social media itself forms the context of use, the aforementioned technical interventions by social media platforms in the content uploaded to them are particularly virulent. Not only do they regularly change the resolution, aspect ratio and file format of image and video files during upload, but they also frequently remove all metadata. Instead of at least providing provide free text fields in the user interface to make rights information visible next to the images, videos and other media content seen in posts, they often leave it at a succinct note in the upload dialogue that images and other media content are usually protected by copyright and that the user should please bear this in mind. This only serves to exculpate the platform operators. In order to use social media in a CCPL-compliant manner, users must then, in case of doubt, insert the attribution information somewhere in the text of their posts. Since this can be significantly longer than the post text itself, a more compact solution is urgently needed, which the CCPL also offers:
150 Sentence 2 now also explicitly mentions in the licence text the availability of attribution information via a one-click link, which has been generally recognised as sufficient in previous CCPL versions since CCPL version 4.0. The starting point here is once again Wikipedia as the most relevant large-scale project Wikipedia as the most relevant large-scale project that uses the CCPL: As mentioned above, given the large number of revisions to Wikipedia articles and the large number of different contributors, it would not be feasible to mention their names directly at the revised location without sacrificing the readability and thus usability of the online encyclopaedia. However, each Wikipedia article contains a hyperlink to its own version history, so that, if necessary, the names of all contributors can be accessed with a single click, along with the exact location of their revisions.
151 The one-click link to the entire attribution information is the ideal solution for all usage scenarios in which the medium sets narrow limits on the text that can be accommodated, but hyperlink functionality is available. It is obviously similar to the hyperlink option in section 3.a.1.C, but differs in one practically significant difference in that the entirety of the attribution information is, of course, different for each use and usage scenario. While the hyperlinks to the relevant licence in accordance with Section 3.a.1.C always refer to the same "canonical" licence text web pages provided by Creative Commons licence text web pages provided by Creative Commons, the pages accessible via the hyperlinks in accordance with clause 2. sentence 2 must contain the respective individual copyright and work information (clause 1. letters A.i., ii., v. and letter B.). In Wikipedia, as described above, this is achieved for text content via the version history of an article, which is automatically updated with each change, in combination with the "fixed" other licence information at the bottom of each page . For images in Wikipedia articles, clicking on them takes you to their "home page" in the Wikimedia Commons image database, where you will find all the information relevant to CC licensing collected in one place.
152 The increased focus of the CCPL, particularly since version 4.0, on the needs of the large-scale Wikipedia project and its sister projects explains not only that the link within the meaning of clause 2, sentence 2 is also licence-compliant in the form of a clickable image .
153 From the above, it should also be clear that the manner of attribution, which may be adapted depending on the medium, means and context, does notallow for a reduced scope of information. Ultimately, all information required under clause 1 must always be included.
154 It must also always be possible to understand, without special knowledge , to which works or other content and, if applicable, within them, to which components the attribution information refers exactly. A documentary film can serve as an example here . Its credits should indicate as precisely as possible which sections contain CC material from third parties (e.g. by means of time stamps). Unfortunately, the precision required in this regard means Unfortunately, the level of accuracy required in this respect means that in many cases the preliminary question of whether it is a combination of works with identifiable sections or parts or whether it is a uniform new work in which precise stratification no longer makes sense and instead an adaptation exists, with the consequence, among other things, that a possible share-alike clause becomes relevant (cf. commentary on section 3.b).
155 What at first glance appears to be one of the most difficult questions in copyright law, "When does adaptation copyright arise?", can in practice usually be assessed even by legal laymen on the basis of whether it is possible to identify the CC-licensed portion of a work in simple terms. As long as this is possible, it must also be done within the scope of the attribution information. If it is no longer possible, either an adaptation has been made, in which case the names of the adapters themselves become part of the (subsequent) attribution information and, in case of doubt, change information must also be provided in accordance with Section 1. Letter B. First HS, or the content has deviated so far from the pre-existing content that it constitutes a completely independent new work within the meaning of Section 23 (1) sentence 2 UrhG.
F. Section 3.a.3. Negative right of attribution
156 Section 3.a.3 stipulates what already applies to copyright and related rights under personal rights law : creators or producers may demand not to be named in relation to their work or other protected object. The clause can therefore only have a genuine effect for those who do not already have corresponding options under the law, such as those arising from general personal rights
157 Even though the wording only mentions licensors, the provision willalso have to applyin favour of attribution recipients and in favour of authors and holders of ancillary copyrights who are not identical with the licensors. Attribution recipients are structurally even more vulnerable here, as they are not even necessarily aware of the attribution at the time of posting content under a CC licence.
158 The German translation allows for the interpretation that the licensor or attribution recipient can only demand the removal of all information covered by Section 3.a.1.A en bloc. However, the English wording "any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A)" (and not "all the information") clearly indicates that the removal of only parts of the information can also be requested. However, the sole removal of the author's name (A.i) while retaining the remaining information (A.ii to v) does not really make sense, as the latter would then lack context, nor can the selective removal of, for example, the reference to the liability provisions (A.iv) have any recognisable advantages for the licensor. Selective removal of only the reference to the applicability of the present CCPL (A.iii), on the other hand, cannot be effectively requested because it must be retained in accordance with letter C.
159 Even beyond this duplication of the obligation to indicate that the licence subject matter can be used under the present CCPL (in section 3.a.1.A.iii and section 3.a.1.C), which was already mentioned above in section 1 Section 3.a.1.A.iii and in Section 3.a.1.C), of which only the occurrence in Section 3.a.1.A.iii is subject to removal in accordance with Clause 3, the question arises: Does this removability not fundamentally contradict the entire release, as it clearly also has a negative impact on potential subsequent recipients? The fact that the licensor automatically makes a CC contract offer to them as well, as Section 2.a.5.A indispensably stipulates, ultimately runs its course as a mechanism if the subsequent recipients cannot see the identity of the licensor after removing the name. This is even more evident if they are not shown any of the information from Section 3.a.1.A. As mentioned at the outset, however, the text of the CCPL at this point primarily takes up the possibilities of intervention of a personal rights nature that already exist in law in favour of many licensors and extends them to other actors. It is therefore rather the law that Here, it is therefore rather the law, especially in its continental European fixation on contractual relationships between individual parties, that conflicts with the idea of public licences that are constantly being offered anew.
160 One problem that should not be underestimated in practice is that of communicating a request to the user in accordance with Section 3.a.3. Typically, in the case of CCPL releases, the licensor cannot Typically, in the case of CCPL releases, the licensor cannot control or otherwise predict who will use their work in accordance with the CCPL rules. Therefore, it typically results in a subsequent request if initial use has already taken place, but the licensor is so dissatisfied with this that they want the information removed. Furthermore, in the case of public licences, the concept of concluding a contract does not require individual communication between licensors and users (, cf. on the subject of concluding a contract , CCPL Einl Rn. 5). Unlike in the case of individual licence initiation and the associated exchange of usage requests and permissions, a CC licensor is generally not aware of the contact details of users. These must therefore first be determined. In the case of mass use of CC-licensed content, the application of section 3.a.3 therefore quickly reaches its practical limits.
161 Otherwise, it can be assumed that the request will only have an effect on those individuals who are addressed in this way, and they must actually have been reached. Therefore, if a licensor requests somewhere on a website on the internet that their name no longer be mentioned in relation to a released work, this has no effect for or against the holders of an existing licence. Rather, this can only have an effect in relation to new interested users and, in case of doubt, will not result in any licence obligation – but only if these new users obtain the work from the licensor themselves. If, on the other hand, they obtain it by other means where the attribution has not been restricted, the unrestricted attribution obligations remain in place.
G. Section 3.a.4. Protection rules for multiple stages of processing (not for ND and SA licence variants)
162 The CC licence variants BY and BY-NC contain in Section 3.a an additional clause 4, which is intended to balance the very generous processing regulations of these licence variants in such a way that the core of the release cannot be easily revoked in accordance with the licence by subsequent revision of the licensed material. 163 In the case of the BY-ND and BY-NC-ND licence variants,
163 In the case of the BY-ND and BY-NC-ND licence variants, the further use of edited materials is not possible without additional permission, so the problem of such revocations does not arise at all. In the case of the BY-SA and BY-NC-SA variants, the Share-Alike clause protects the material against revocations in this sense.
164 With the BY and BY-NC variants, however, changes to the material that are just sufficient to obtain editorial copyright can be used to create new material that can be redistributed in accordance with the licence and which, in turn, is made available under completely different conditions, ones that in no way correspond to those of the open content paradigm. According to the idea behind clause 4 in section 3.a, this should not go so far as to effectively revoke the release decision with regard to the original material, which is to remain permanently usable under CC BY or BY-NC .
H. Version history
165 Version of the clause in licence set version 1.0 (no German version available, licence type CC BY 1.0 Generic):
4. Restrictions. The licence granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this Licence, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this Licence with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this Licence and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Licence Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.
If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
166 Version of the clause in licence set version 2.0 (licence type CC BY 2.0 de, ported into German for German law):
4. Restrictions. The granting of rights of use pursuant to Section 3 is expressly subject to the following conditions:
You may only reproduce, distribute or publicly display the protected object under the terms of this licence, and you must always include a copy or the full internet address in the form of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) of this licence when you reproduce, distribute or publicly display the protected object. You may not offer any contractual terms or require any terms that alter or restrict the terms of this licence or the rights granted by it . You may not sublicense the protected object . You must leave all notices referring to this licence and the disclaimer unchanged. You may not apply any technical protection measures to the protected object that control access to or use of the protected object in a manner that conflicts with the terms of this licence . The above restrictions also apply if the protected material forms part of a collective work; however, they do not require the collective work as a whole to be made subject to this licence. If you create a collective work, you must – as far as practicable – remove any notice of a licensor or author from the collective work. If you edit the protected object, you must, as far as practicable, remove any reference to this rights holder from the edit at the request of a rights holder.
If you reproduce, distribute or publicly perform the protected work or an adaptation or collective work, you must keep all copyright notices for the protected work unchanged and acknowledge the authorship or ownership of rights in a form appropriate to your use by naming the name (or pseudonym, if one is used) of the author or rights holder, if specified. This also applies to the title of the protected work, if specified, and – to to the extent reasonably practicable – to the internet address associated with the protected work in the form of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) as specified by the licensor, if this has been done, unless this internet address does not refer to the copyright notice or licence information for the protected work. In the case of an adaptation, a reference must be made to the form in which the protected object has been incorporated into the adaptation (e.g. "French translation of ... (work) by ... (author)" or "The screenplay is based on the work of ... (author)". Such a reference may be made in any appropriate manner, provided that, in the case of an adaptation, database or collective work, the reference is made at least in the same place and in the same conspicuous manner as comparable references to other rights holders.
Although the rights of use granted in accordance with clause 3 may be exercised comprehensively
, this permission is limited by law to
the moral rights of the authors and performing artists, whose legitimate intellectual and personal interests or whose reputation or standing must not be jeopardised by the protected object being impaired beyond what is legally permissible.
167 Version of the clause in licence set version 2.5 (no German version available, licence type CC BY 2.5 Generic)
4. Restrictions. The licence granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this Licence, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this Licence with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this Licence and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Licence Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested.
If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
168 Version of the clause in licence set version 3.0 (licence type CC BY 3.0 de, ported into German for German law):
4. Conditions
The granting of the right of use in accordance with Section 3 of this licence is expressly subject to the following conditions:
You may distribute or publicly display the protected work only under the terms of this licence. You must always include a copy of this licence or its full Internet address in the form of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). You may not offer or impose any contractual or usage terms that restrict the terms of this licence or the rights granted by this licence. You may not You may not sublicense the protected object. For each copy of the protected object that you distribute or publicly display, you must leave all notices unchanged that refer to this licence and the disclaimer. If you distribute or publicly display the protected object, you may not (in relation to the protected object) take any technical measures that may hinder the user of the protected object in exercising the rights granted to them by this licence. This section 4.a) also applies in the event that the protected object forms part of a collective work, which does not, however, mean that the collective work as a whole must be subject to this licence. If you create a collective work , you must, upon notification by a licensor, remove the notices listed in section 4.b) from the collective work. If you make a modification, you must, upon notification by a licensor, remove the notices listed in section 4.b) from the modification .
The distribution and public display of the protected object or modifications based on it or compilations containing it is only permitted on the condition that you, subject to any notices within the meaning of Section 4.a), leave all associated rights notices untouched. You are obliged to acknowledge the ownership of rights in a form appropriate to the use by stating the following, if known:
The name (or pseudonym, if used is used) of the rights holder and/or, if the licensor has attributed the rights to a third party in the rights notice, terms of use or in another appropriate manner (e.g. to a foundation, publishing house or newspaper) ("attribution recipient"), the name or designation of this third party or parties;
the title of the content;
in a practicable form, the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI, e.g. internet address) specified by the licensor for the protected object, unless this URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licence information for the protected object;
and, in the case of a modification of the protected subject matter in accordance with Section 3.b), a notice that it is a modification.
The information required under this Section 4.b) may be provided in any reasonable form; in the case of a modification of the protected work or a collective work, this information must be the minimum required and, if several rights holders are named together, must be presented in such a way that it is at least as prominent as the references to the other rights holders. You may use the information under this section exclusively to indicate the ownership of rights in the manner described above . By exercising your rights under this licence, you may not, without the prior, separate and written consent of the licensor and/or the attribution recipient, explicitly or implicitly suggest any connection with the licensor or attribution recipient, nor any support or endorsement by them.
The restrictions mentioned above in 4.a) and b) do not apply to those parts of the protected object which fall under the term "protected object" solely because they enjoy intellectual property protection of their own kind as databases or compilations of data. Personal rights remain unaffected by
Personal rights, insofar as they exist, remain unaffected by this licence.
169 Version of the clause in licence set version 4.0:
Attribution.
If you distribute the licensed material (including in modified form), you must:
A. retainthe following information, if included by the licensor in the licensed material :
i. the name of the creator(s) of the licensed material and others who are intended to be named (including by pseudonym, if specified), in any form required by the licensor that is reasonable;
ii. a copyright notice;
iii. a reference to this Public Licence;
iv. a reference to the disclaimer;
v. where reasonably practicable, a URI or hyperlink to the licensed material;
B. indicate if you have modified the licensed material, and retain all previous modification notices; and
C. indicate that the licensed material is licensed under this Public Licence, and include its text or URI or a hyperlink to it.
You may fulfil the conditions of Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable form, depending on the medium, means and context in or with which you distribute the licensed material. For example, it may be reasonable to fulfil the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a source containing the required information.
If the licensor requires it, you must remove the information required under Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.
If you distribute modified material that you have created yourself, the modification licence you choose must not prevent recipients of the modified material from complying with this Public Licence.
Creative Commons License
Open Access Kommentar, Commentary on Section 3.a. Attribution is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
