dippadm1268743811.97

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

1/15

201041

Abstract: When Creative Commons (CC) was founded in 2001, the core Creative Commons licenseswere drafted according to United States Copyright Law. Since their first introduction in December 2002,Creative Commons licenses have been enthusiastically adopted by many creators, authors, and othercontent producers not only in the United States, but in many other jurisdictions as well.

Global interest in the CC licenses prompted a discussion about the need for national versions of theCC licenses. To best address this need, the international license porting project (Creative CommonsInternational formerly known as International Commons) was launched in 2003. Creative CommonsInternational works to port the core Creative Commons licenses to different copyright legislations aroundthe world. The porting process includes both linguistically translating the licenses and legally adaptingthe licenses to a particular jurisdiction such that they are comprehensible in the local jurisdiction and

legally enforceable but concurrently retain the same key elements.

Since its inception, Creative Commons International has found many supporters all over the world.With Finland, Brazil, and Japan as the first completed jurisdiction projects, experts around the globehave followed their lead and joined the international collaboration with Creative Commons to adapt thelicenses to their local copyright. This article aims to present an overview of the international portingprocess, explain and clarify the international license architecture, its legal and promotional aspects, aswell as its most recent challenges.

Creative Commons International

The International License Porting Project

Origins, Experiences, and Challenges

byCatharina Maracke, Berlin / Tokyo

Dr. iur., Associate Professor, Graduate School of Media andGovernance, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University;Director, Creative Commons International, 2006 2009

2010 Catharina Maracke.

Everbody may disseminate this article by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms andconditions of the Digital Peer Publishing Licence (DPPL). A copy of the license text may be obtained at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8.

As an alternative, the articles may also be used under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivative Works 3.0 Germany. A copy of the license text may be obtained at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-

nd/3.0/de/legalcode.

Recommended citation: Maracke, Catharina, Creative Commons International: The International License Porting Project Origins, Experiences, and Challenges, 1 (2010) JIPITEC 4, para. 1

Keywords: Creative Commons, Creative Commons licenses, Creative Commons International, Moral

Rights, Private International Law, Case Studies, Interoperability

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

2/15

2010


51

A. Introduction: Creative Com-mons a global project to fosterculture and innovation

Over the past decade, we have seen an enor-1mous change in the way we disseminate and

exchange information. The advent of thewidespread adoption of digital technologieshas enabled a new generation of contentcreation and exchange. Technical advanceshave made it possible to distribute works ina variety of formats and of a high, often pro-fessional quality. It has become much easierand cheaper to work collaboratively acrosscontexts and different media and to cre-ate new, derivative or collective works on aglobal level.

The downside of these new technical devel-2opments is that they can more easily facili-tate a contradiction of law. Most of the digitalcontent being accessed through the Internetis subject to copyright and owned by a partic-ular person or company. But because of howdigital technologies function, most of theseuses necessarily make a copy2of the origi-nal work and/or require distribution, whichcan cause friction under the default terms of

copyright: By enabling temporary and per-manent copies, copyrights right is exercisedand, from these copies, interpretive reuse ispossible, which in turn implicates anothercopyright rule, the derivative works right.3

Current copyright regulation maintains the3absurdity that while on the one hand, digitaltechnology can provide a much bigger scopeof access and distribution, such access willbe unlawful unless either the law allows thatspecic access or the respective copyright

owner gives permission.4However, it is un-questioned that the ow and exchange of in-formation is key for a well functioning soci-ety, be it on a cultural or economic level. Thisdilemma has prompted a discussion aboutmaking the law more suitable for the digitalage in many different national jurisdictionsaround the world. Since debating and re-forming law naturally takes time, many usersrealized that a much more valuable and im-mediate solution would be to work with new

types of voluntary mechanisms that wouldoperate within the currently existing copy-right framework. Creative Commons aims toprovide such voluntary mechanisms by of-fering creators and licensors a simple way to

say what freedoms they want their creativecontent to carry. Through its free copyrightlicenses,5Creative Commons offers creatorsand other authors a legal way to structuretheir rights. Content and information canbe set free for certain uses, consistent withthe authors specic intent, opening thestage for a more exible ow of content andinformation.6

While the origins of Creative Commons, in-4cluding the projects founder, lie in the Unit-ed States,7 many people around the worldhave entered the discussion and joined theinitiative to make Creative Commons a trulyglobal project, one that builds a distributed,international information commons byencouraging copyright owners to make their

material available through open content li-censing protocols and thereby promote bet-ter identication, negotiation, and reutiliza-tion of content for the purposes of creativityand innovation.8

B. Creative Commons licensinginfrastructure

The Creative Commons licensing suite con-5sists of public standardized licenses that al-low authors to decide whether others maymake commercial use of their work, whetherto make derivative works, and if derivativeworks are allowed, whether these deriva-tive works must be made available under thesame licensing terms.9 All licenses requireattribution.10 Attribution is a key element- not only regarding some of the legal ques-tions, but also in terms of cultural norms andacceptance.11

A license, once selected, is expressed in three6different ways: 1) the human readable for-mat (Deed), 2) the lawyer readable format(Legal Code), and 3) the machine readableformat (Resource Description Format, meta-data). The latter enables online content andinformation, licensed under a Creative Com-mons license, to be searched for and identi-ed based on the works licensing terms.12The Deed is drafted to be understood byanyone without any legal background, and

the Legal Code is the actual license, a le-gal document drafted to be read by lawyers,courts, and those with a particular interest orinvolvement in the legal details. These threedifferent layers of the Creative Commons li-

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

3/15

2010

Catharina Maracke

61

censes are often described as one distinctionbetween Creative Commons licenses andother Open Content licenses such as the GNUFree Documentation License13or the Free ArtLicense.14 Another important distinguishingfeature of Creative Commons licenses is itsinternationalization.

C. Creative Commons Inter-national the global portingproject

Global interest in Creative Commons soared7as did license usage worldwide. Because ofthis and most importantly because of theinternational structure of the Internet per se,it became clear that Creative Commons could

not remain a US project alone. Building onthe work initiated in the United States, Cre-ative Commons International was foundedto coordinate and support the growth of aninternational network responsible for port-ing the original US licenses and other toolsto local jurisdictions. The goal of this inter-national porting project is to create a mul-tilingual model of the licensing suite that islegally enforceable in jurisdictions aroundthe world.

To achieve this aim, Creative Commons In-8ternational works with local experts in theintellectual property and technology eldsto evaluate national copyright legislationsand how these national legislations wouldpotentially interact with Creative Commonslicenses. This evaluation is a prerequisite toproducing high quality localized versions ofthe Creative Commons licenses. To guaran-tee such high quality, Creative Commons In-ternational has developed a set of guidelinesfor the porting process, a detailed ten-stepprogram through which each participatingjurisdiction project works rstly to identifylocal Project Leads and Afliate Institutions,followed by the license drafting, public dis-cussion, license revision, technical arrange-ments and translation, and launch event.15Once a local host institution and a nationallegal expert are identied and appointed toact as Project Lead for the respective na-tional CC project, the actual work begins with

a rst draft of a localized Creative Commonslicense, literally translated into the nationallanguage and legally adapted to the nationalcopyright law. An English retranslation and

a detailed explanation of all substantial legalchanges describe what revisions have beenmade to t the Creative Commons licensesinto the local legislation and allow for a fruit-ful and efcient discussion with the CreativeCommons International team.16After that, apublic discussion of the national license draftis called, in which the license draft and sup-porting documents are used to gather inputfrom potential local stakeholders and usergroups. After careful review and approval bythe Creative Commons International team,the Creative Commonsjurisdiction licensesareofcially made available and can be accessedthrough the Creative Commons licensechooser.17

To date, 52 different national Creative Com-9

mons projects have successfully launchednational versions of the original CreativeCommons licenses.18 With Thailand and theCzech Republic being the most recent tojoin the global project and with Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia as well as Indo-nesia, Vietnam, and several other countriesin progress, Creative Commons Internationalhas been able to expand its projects beyondthe better known traditional copyright ju-risdictions and into Asia Pacic, Eastern Eu-

rope, and the Post Soviet states. Whereas thelegal framework forms an important com-ponent of the international porting project,there have also been signicant educationaland promotional efforts undertaken as partof the internationalization strategy. In thefollowing, some of the legal aspects will behighlighted, followed by a short outline ofthe projects promotional efforts.

1. Legal aspects

The most important reason for developing10an international licensing model is to addressthe differences and particularities in under-standing copyright according to nationallegislations around the globe. Differences inthe legislation and licensing practices amongjurisdictions reveal several legal issues thatdo not appear in the US context and vice ver-sa. Some problems arising under local law,e.g. German law can only be addressed by a

German version of the core Creative Com-mons licenses, namely a version that is trans-lated into the German language and adaptedto German law. Only such a localized version

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

4/15

2010


71

of the CC licenses will assure enforceabilityin local courts.19

Moral Rights:11 One of the most signicant legalissues addressed in porting the Creative Com-mons licenses is moral rights. Moral rights,to describe them briey, are distinct fromany economic rights tied to copyright. Evenif an author has assigned his or her rights toa third party, he still maintains the moralrights to his work. Moral rights recognize anauthors personal attachment to their workand seek to protect that connection. The con-cept of the authors moral rights goes back tothe early days of copyright in the Continen-tal European regimes.20 The theory behindmoral rights according to European Conti-nental law is that authors of copyrightable

works have inalienable rights21in their worksthat protect their moral or personal interestand that complement the authors economicrights. In this way, the moral rights serve toprotect the inherent link between the au-thor and his intellectual and mental creativework.22 While there can be many differentmoral rights depending on the jurisdiction,all member states of the Berne Convention23are required to provide legal protection forat least two specic moral rights, which sub-

sequently are the main rights currently pres-ent in most countries around the globe: themoral right of attributionand the moral rightof integrity.24As stated in Art. 6bis of the BerneConvention, these two moral rights give theauthor of a copyright-protected work theright to claim authorship of the work and toobject to any distortion, mutilation or othermodication of, or other derogatory actionin relation to, the said work, which would beprejudicial to his honor or reputation.25

Since all Creative Commons licenses require12attribution,26there is less of an issue regard-ing the authors moral right of attribution.However, the authors right to object to anyderogatory treatment of his work has thepotential to impact the freedom to modifythe work and exercise the right to make de-rivatives. A derivative work will likely alwaysqualify as an alteration of the original work,and there may be some instances where it isarguable that it is prejudicial to the original

authors reputation or honor.27While this hasnot been much of a problem in the US andwhen drafting the US Creative Commons li-censes, the freedom to modify the work has

provoked many legal issues in traditionaldroit dauteur jurisdictions like France andGermany.

It might sound contradictory that the free-13dom to modify the work poses legal prob-lems in European jurisdictions like Germanyor France but not in the US even though allthree of those jurisdictions are signatories ofthe Berne Convention. There is, however, afeasible explanation. The Berne Conventiononly assures that moral rights exist, but itdoes not address the question of a potentialwaiver of moral rights. Each individual mem-ber state has to determine in its own legisla-tion to which extent if any an author isable to waive such rights.28

The possibility of waiving moral rights, plus14its legal effectiveness and the potential scopeof a waiver, is one of the most pressing ques-tions for Creative Commons licenses. Thisis especially true with regard to the Conti-nental European copyright regimes, such asFrance, which is considered to be the birth-place of the moral rights doctrine.29 Tradi-tionally, France and other droit dauteurjurisdictions have provided a much strongerand broader protection of moral rights than

most of the copyright regimes based on com-mon law. French legislation currently statesthat moral rights are inalienable, and al-though upon the authors death they maybe transmitted to his or her legal successors,they may not be otherwise transferred or as-signed. Consequently, French courts have de-termined that 1) authors cannot legally re-linquish or abandon the rights of attributionor integrity altogether, 2) advance blanketwaivers are unenforceable, and 3) narrowly

tailored waivers that involve reasonablyforeseeable encroachments on the authorsmoral rights are generally valid.30

Most other Continental European copyright15jurisdictions follow the French tradition intheir own regulation of moral rights. Despitethe current debate in Germany about whetherit might be possible to partially waive copy-right including moral rights,31there has notyet been room for any different understand-ing of moral rights. German courts and most

scholars still accept assignments only underthe condition that the changes are specied,meaning that the author must have a realis-tic chance to foresee any changes that will be

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

5/15

2010

Catharina Maracke

81

made.32This option is rather unlikely, if notimpossible, within the context of standard-ized open content licenses such as the Cre-ative Commons licenses.33 France and Ger-many are only two examples of how moralrights are conceived as inalienable andthereby proscribe any assignment or waiverof such rights, many other jurisdictions canbe found that follow the French approach.34

On the other hand, most common law coun-16tries have traditionally favored the protec-tion of economic rights within the copyrightregimes, although moral rights have foundtheir way into the copyright laws by othermeans.35 In the past decades, countries likethe United Kingdom and Australia have de-veloped a moral rights concept in their na-

tional legislation but simultaneously alloweda waiver of such rights.36Between these twodifferent approaches to moral rights thereare some jurisdictions such as the Nether-lands, which traditionally follow the Conti-nental European droit dauteur approachbut allow a partial waiver under certain cir-cumstances.37Under Canadian copyright law,which is heavily inuenced by the civil lawtradition of Quebec, moral rights may not beassigned but may be waived in whole or in

part.38However, the act of assigning a copy-right in Canada does not in itself constitutea waiver of any moral rights. Therefore, anyact or omission contrary to one of the au-thors moral rights is, without the authorsconsent, an infringement of his or her moralrights.39

Finally, Japan deserves a separate analy-17sis. Under Japanese law, any modicationagainst the authors will could be a viola-

tion of the moral right of integrity.

40

If themodication is made in a way where it ispossible to directly perceive the essentialcharacteristics of the original work such amodication can be a violation of the moralright of integrity if the authors consent ismissing.41Even though it can be argued thatallowing derivative works through a CreativeCommons license implies that the authorgave his consent and that at least part of themoral right of integrity is licensed, thereremains a risk of violating the moral right of

integrity if the resulting derivative work isoutside the scope of what the author thoughthe was licensing.42

Different regulations and interpretations of18moral rights make their adaptation in variousjurisdictions one of the most important legalissues when working with Creative Com-mons licenses. One approach could be to notmention moral rights in Creative Commonslicenses at all.43Not addressing moral rightsin the legal code could be argued as leavingthe legal code open for interpretation by therespective court in the case of an infringe-ment. But what would be the consequence ifCreative Commons licenses did not providefor any regulation regarding moral rights?Would the court simply recognize moralrights as they are implemented and executedin the respective national law? And what im-pact could this have for the existence of thelicense, especially for the section allowing

derivative works?

Taking again the German situation as an illus-19trative example, the whole section of the Cre-ative Commons license that allows for deriv-ative works would most likely be consideredinvalid under the German law of standardterms.44Creating and distributing derivativeworks would be impossible. To avoid sucha risk of invalidity, moral rights have to bedealt with in Creative Commons licenses if

these licenses are to be used whenever Ger-man law is applicable. Similarly, most otherContinental European jurisdictions licenseshave to deal with the specic and mostlyvery restrictive moral rights regulation intheir respective national legislation.

Because of this uncertainty and especially be-20cause of the fact that interpretation by localcourts cannot be clearly foreseen, it was dis-cussed and decided amongst the global Cre-

ative Commons International Network to ad-dress moral rights in the Creative Commonslicenses. Instead of not mentioning moralrights at all, in the hope that local courtswould implement it adequately, moral rightsare now dealt with in the Creative Commonslicenses. To provide clarity regarding thetreatment of moral rights, it was agreed toexplicitly retain the moral right of integrityin those jurisdiction licenses that have todeal with a strong level of protection for themoral right of integrity, considering the risk

that local courts could take a dim view of alicense that does not expressly include moralrights.45

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

6/15

2010


91

Consequently, the next question when evalu-21ating the Creative Commons licenses in termsof moral rights is whether those rights shouldbe waived or not. Since most jurisdictionsthroughout the world grant moral rights toauthors, but only some of them allow for awaiver, the issue of a potential waiver pres-ents a challenge for Creative Commons li-censes. Many users within the communityare in favor of a license that permits creatorsto completely waive moral rights, becauseonly such a license would ensure that thefreedom to create derivatives and build uponanothers work can be exercised to the full-est extent possible. On the other hand, it hasagain been argued that the Creative Com-mons licenses would face the risk of beingvulnerable to judicial validity should the re-

spective national copyright legislation con-ceive moral rights as inalienable and there-fore proscribe any assignment or waiver ofsuch rights. Thus, the policy question to beevaluated is which uncertainty is more toler-able: the one brought about by the possibil-ity of claims against (downstream) users forintegrity rights violation or the uncertaintybrought about by having the licenses perse vulnerable to attack for providing moralrights waiver.46

To make it even more complicated, not only22does this question have to be discussed on anational level for each respective jurisdic-tion license; it also has an impact on an in-ternational level, since all Creative Commonslicenses have to work globally as well. Whendrafting the moral rights wording for a na-tional version of the Creative Commons li-censes while at the same time looking at thedifferent regulations for moral rights in dif-

ferent jurisdictions, the question of applica-ble law becomes relevant. Will the respectivenational copyright legislation necessarilyalways provide the basis for discussions andinterpretation of the moral rights sectionof that particular associated Creative Com-mons license? Hence, the issue about moralrights proves perfectly how almost everylegal question regarding Creative Commonslicenses coincides with rules of Private In-ternational Law. In the case of moral rights,after careful consideration and consultationwith the international legal network, it wasagreed that most jurisdictions should imple-ment a simple wording stating that moralrights remain untouched by the respective

Creative Commons license so as to ensurevalidity of the license but allow for the ex-ercise of the rights provided by the licenseto the fullest extent permitted by applica-ble law in order to respect the freedom tomodify the work as broadly as possible. Formost of the national jurisdiction licenses, thefollowing simple wording served as a basisfor discussion during the porting process:Moral Rights remain unaffected to the extentthey are recognized and not waivable by appli-cable law.

This approach23 47 allows the user to exercisethe rights under the license to the fullestextent possible, while also protecting the li-cense from any challenge and potential riskof invalidity based on an improper or void

waiver. It also leaves enough room for inter-pretation at the respective national level andat the same time ts perfectly into the over-all international harmonization efforts of theglobal porting project.

Neighboring Rights and especially the European24Database Directive: In addition to the tradi-tional protection of copyrightable works,most European copyright systems48also pro-vide protection for related rights (neigh-

boring rights) and through the EuropeanDatabase Directive49for databases (sui gen-eris database protection).50Similar to the ar-gumentation for the protection of neighbor-ing rights, the Database Directive allows forthe special protection of a database whichshows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment ineither obtaining, verication or presentationof the contents to prevent extraction and/reutilization of the whole or of a substantial

part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quanti-tatively, of the contents of that database.51Obviously, the rationale behind protectionis not the personal intellectual creation, asit is the prerequisite for copyright protec-tion in most European jurisdictions,52 butrather the investmentshown by the maker ofa database.53

In the past, some of the European localized25and translated versions of Creative Com-mons licenses (see Belgium, France, Germany

and the Netherlands) contained a referenceto the respective national legislation passedpursuant to the Database Directive by den-ing a work to include databases protected

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

7/15

2010

Catharina Maracke

101

by these laws.54 However, most other Euro-pean licenses did not mention the databaserights at all, even if the Database Directivehad already been implemented in their na-tional legislation. Neighboring rights and inparticular the database right turned out to beone of the most controversial and the mostinconsistently treated aspects in the Euro-pean licenses.

The main argument for addressing these26rights in the European licenses is that theserights are dened so broadly that, withoutaddressing them, the national versions ofthe Creative Commons licenses are neithercomplete nor exercisable in practical appli-cations, particularly in Internet collections.55The main argument follows that without the

neighboring rights and database right in-cluded, the licensor would still hold some ex-clusive rights in the work that was intendedto be licensed. To resolve this problem, it wassuggested to explicitly incorporate the neigh-boring rights as well as the database right inthe license text by extending the denitionof work so that neighboring rights are list-ed concurrently with the denition of work,namely as being the copyrightable work ofauthorship.

On the other hand, there have been signi-27cant concerns regarding the inclusion ofdatabase rights in the Creative Commons li-censes. It was argued that Creative Commonslicenses, when including the sui generis da-tabase right via the denition of work, canbecome especially problematic as they posethe danger that, through the use of a Cre-ative Commons license, protection of the suigeneris database right can be imported to a

jurisdiction without any sui generis databaseright protection. In other words, by using anational version of the Creative Commonslicenses for a jurisdiction which both a) hasimplemented the European Database Direc-tive and b) where the national Creative Com-mons licenses reect the legislation throughan amendment of the denition of work andan inclusion of the database right as an ex-clusive right, the use of such a license couldactually lead to the assumption and confu-sion that these rights are intended to be

respected even if they are not protected bynational law.

As a result of the debate between the ad-28vantages and disadvantages of implement-ing neighboring rights and the very specicproblem of the European database rights, itwas agreed to include these rights in the Cre-ative Commons licenses where they are rec-ognized by the national legislation. But at thesame time, a geographic boundary assuresthat those Creative Commons licenses thatdene the term work to include neighbor-ing rights as well as databases protected bythe national implementation of the DatabaseDirective, should have territorial limitationsregarding these rights by stating that theseare only included in the denition of workto the extent they are recognized and pro-tected by applicable law.56Additionally, forthe database right, an unconditional waiver

will ensure that these rights are disquali-ed in the scientic context. Concretely, thismeans that those national Creative Com-mons jurisdiction licenses that have includ-ed the database protected by the nationalimplementation of the European DatabaseDirective as a consequence of following aharmonized treatment of neighboring rightsmust waive these specic database rights ob-tained under the sui generis right. A simplesentence at the end of the license grant en-

sures the resolution for European licenses:Where the Licensor is the owner of the sui gen-eris database rights under the national law imple-menting the European Database Directive, the Li-censor will waive this right.

2. Language: Spreading the wordand promotional aspects

As indicated above, license international-29ization also has tremendous impact on the

worldwide usage of Creative Commons li-censes and by extension, on the growth of theglobal commons as a pool of pre-clearedcontent that can be mixed and shared on aninternational level. Linguistically translat-ing the licenses into a jurisdictions nationallanguage encourages license acceptance andusage beyond the English-speaking world. Inaddition, ofcially recognized license trans-lations lead to increased global adoption byinstitutions and public organizations, includ-

ing governments.57

Not only can we nd anenormous number of Creative Commons li-censed content via popular search enginessuch as Google, Yahoo or others,58 someconcrete examples59 of Creative Commons

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

8/15

2010


111

license usage qualitatively demonstrates theglobal impact of Creative Commons over thepast years. These examples provide evidenceof how Creative Commons licensed contentts into other projects and helps build a sys-tem of networked informational exchange inthe Internet.

In December 2008 the German Federal Ar-30chives60 donated a signicant amount ofhistorical German images to the WikimediaCommons project.61 These images are nowlicensed under the German Creative Com-mons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.Their availability to the public through theWikimedia Commons is part of a coopera-tion between Wikimedia Germany and theFederal Archives, whose collaboration also

developed a tool to link the images to theirrespective German Wikipedia article andle in the German National Library. Anoth-er signicant boost for Creative Commonsemphasizes that Creative Commons licens-es are not only important to private usersand amateurs. Shortly after the publicationof this news from Germany, the Australian(Queensland) government launched a newwebsite for their Government InformationLicensing Framework project (GILF) under

the Australian Creative Commons Attribu-tion 2.5 license.62 Through this website, theGILF project is working to further promotethe benets of using and re-using of PublicSector Information. These benets can bemeasured for the Australian community interms of innovation, creativity, and econom-ic growth: The GILF makes it easy for peoplewho use public sector information to understandthe rights of use associated with PSI material.GILF comprises a simple open content licensing

framework, designed to assist in the managementof government intellectual property, and encour-age the use of public sector information throughincreased availability and accessibility... .63 En-couraged by the preceding national debatein which it was argued that owing to CreativeCommons status as an international movement,and its recognition as a standard for exible copy-right licensing, the government can gain signi-cant leverage from adopting Creative Commons.No point in needlessly re-inventing the wheel64the Australian GILF can be seen as one of themost innovative governmental projects inthe world.

The list of case studies can be extended and31seen as the best proof that developing the in-ternational porting project and working withlocal Project Leads and Afliate Institutionsin different jurisdictions on national versionsof the core CC licenses becomes, automati-cally, the best promotional tool for CreativeCommons. It remains the key factor for theinternational adoption of Creative Commonslicenses.

When porting the licenses to different na-32tional jurisdictions around the world, Cre-ative Commons International has simultane-ously established an international networkof IP and IT experts. With the patronage andenormous support of this network, the ideaof Creative Commons as a new type of vol-

untary mechanism for legal questions withinthe digital age has entered the local debateabout copyright law on a national legisla-tive level. The greatest success of CreativeCommons is its unshakable presence in thediscussion of a pragmatic legal system thatdeals with questions arising with the adventof the Internet.

D. Challenges for Creative Com-mons and its international li-censing model

Private International Law33 : The previous ex-amples as well as the legal evaluation of onlytwo potential issues for Creative Commonslicenses demonstrates that there is a need forthe international porting project and that thelicenses have to be adapted in many differentways to prevent misunderstandings and in-validity. We cannot ignore the fact that someprovisions of a US license would be invalidinsofar as European law is applicable. How-ever, at the same time, this perception opensthe discussion about the applicable law anda potential choice of law clause in the Cre-ative Commons licenses. In other words, amultijurisdictional approach raises an ar-ray of private international law issues. Thekey question to be investigated arises whenLicensor A, a resident of Germany, is licens-ing his picture on his German website underthe German Creative Commons licenses At-

tribution (BY) and Licensee B, a resident ofNew Zealand is using the picture on his NewZealand website without giving attributionat all. In the case that Licensor A wants to sue

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

9/15

2010

Catharina Maracke

121

Licensee B alleging that Bs activities infringethe terms of the German Creative Commonslicense, which court would be competentto hear the claim and more importantly which law would be applicable? And nally,how can the ruling be enforced elsewhere?

Not all of these questions can be covered in34this article, whose purpose it is to raise theseissues rather than solve them. In terms of theapplicable law, and according to the rules ofprivate international law, two different is-sues have to be considered. The rst one ishow to deal with questions regarding copy-right, the second relates to other parts of thelaw, such as contract law.

For all questions regarding copyright, such35

as questions about the existence, duration ofcopyright, moral rights or even questions re-garding fair dealing or limitations and excep-tions of the exclusive copyright, the rule ofterritoriality will have to be applied. Accord-ing to Art. 8 of the recently adopted Rome IIregulation, at least for the European Union, itis stated that The law applicable to a non-con-tractual obligation arising from an infringementof an intellectual property right shall be the law ofthe country for which protection is claimed.65On

an international scale, many scholars consid-er Art. 5 II of the Berne Convention as mir-roring this approach.66 However, especiallyfor copyright issues, the rule of territorialityis still controversial.67

Irrespective of how to interpret the word-36ing of the Berne Convention, and without adetailed analysis of all arguments, the cur-rent tendency is to stick with the rule of ter-ritoriality on questions of copyright, espe-cially regarding the existence and durationof copyright and neighboring rights, moralrights or even questions about fair deal-ing or limitations and exceptions of the ex-clusive copyright.68 Consequently, all thesecopyright questions are governed by the re-spective national legal order. Instead of one

global copyright, the copyright holder hasa bundle of different national copyrights,which can be seen as some kind of mosaic-like approach.69

For contractual issues, the answer is even37more complicated. According to Article 4 ofthe Rome I Convention of 2008 on the lawapplicable to contractual obligations,70 the

applicable law is considered to be the na-tional law of the jurisdiction where theparty required to effect the characteristicperformance of the contract has his habitualresidence unless the parties have agreedon a different choice of law in the contract.To the extent Creative Commons licensesare deemed to be a contract, a choice of lawclause could be helpful to complete the pic-ture of a nationally adapted license. By mak-ing sure that the German version of the Cre-ative Commons licenses will be governed byGerman law, some level of legal certainty canbe reached. However, as mentioned above,the potential choice of law clause can onlyhelp for contractual issues of the CreativeCommons licenses and only if the CreativeCommons licenses themselves are consid-

ered to be a contract. For questions regard-ing copyright, the rule of territoriality isinternationally mandatory and cannot beeluded by any additional choice of law clausein the license.71

To summarize, these questions regarding38private international law are probably themost crucial and most difcult to be investi-gated when working with Creative Commonslicenses in the digital age, since any use on

the Internet tends to cross borders. One po-tential starting point for further researchand discussion could be the relationshipbetween different national versions of theCreative Commons licenses. Because of howCreative Commons licenses are functioningand especially because they are non-exclusive,the licensor is free to choose more than onelicense and also combine different licenseversions, which can be used in parallel. Oncedifferent licenses are used in parallel, the

only missing point will be a mechanism toensure that each license is used in the cor-rect and adequate context, e.g., the Germanlicense should be binding if German law isapplicable. For contractual issues, this resultcan be reached by implementing a choice oflaw clause (see above), and for copyright is-sues this can be assured by adding some kindof restriction to the respective jurisdiction.72Whether and how the same effect can bereached or at least be supported by technicaladvancement needs to be investigated andfurther discussed.

Interoperability39 : The idea of open content li-censes is not new, and Creative Commons

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

10/15

2010


131

did not invent the rst free public licensesfor digital content. Following the Free Soft-ware Foundations initiative to build a publiclicense for software, there were many othersto follow and to release free licenses designedfor creative content instead of software. TheArt Libre License73 and the Free SoftwareFoundations GNU Free Documentation Li-cense (GNU FDL)74are probably the most fa-mous, but others can be found for differenttypes of works and content.75

All these open content licenses share a com-40mon goal, which is to give authors, creators,and other rights holders the ability to offerimportant freedoms and share with others.However, there remains an issue when re-mixing content that has been licensed under

different open content licenses.76 Generallyspeaking, the copyleft or ShareAlike elementof any open content license requires deriva-tives to be licensed under the same licenseonly. Consequently, content available un-der an open content license that includes aShareAlike element cannot be used togetherand remixed with content that has been li-censed under another open content license,even if this license also includes a ShareAlikeor copyleft element.

In the past, this was a major issue for the Wiki-41pedia project. Before the most recent changein license adoption for Wikipedia articles,77if someone wanted to put together a moviebased on a Wikipedia entry, supplementedwith images licensed under a Creative Com-mons license on Flickr, this was not legallypermitted even if it was technically pos-sible.78The same was true for pictures, mu-sic or other content licensed under Creative

Commons license BY-SA. If licensed underCC BY-SA, these materials could not legallybe remixed with other creative content thatwas licensed under another open contentlicense, even another copyleft license.79 Ob-viously, the idea of building a common poolof easily accessible and pre-cleared, freelyavailable content would fail if this problemwere not addressed in the near future. Oneof the most important features of digitaltechnologies, namely the possibility to takeimages, music and other content, remix it,

and produce something new at relativelylow cost yet often of high quality, would bediminished if the content were restricted tothe respective license terms. Instead, with-

out interoperability, many different but notoverlapping pools of creative content wouldbe established.

In terms of the Wikipedia project, this issue42has just recently been addressed by a newversion of the CC BY-SA as well as a new ver-sion of the GNU FDL. Creative Commons li-censes at version 3.0 allow for a new ShareAlike structure in their CC BY-SA, which en-ables Creative Commons to certify particularlicenses as being compatible with the CC BY-SA.80 Once certied as being compatible, li-censees of both the CC BY-SA version 3.0 andthe certied CC compatible license will beable to relicense derivatives under either li-cense.81Similarly, the Free Software Founda-tion released an update of the GNU FDL.82This

new version was drafted specically to allowWikipedia and other projects in a similar po-sition to make licensing changes.83Interoper-ability between GNU FDL and CC BY-SA, andespecially the move from GNU FDL to the CCBY-SA as the primary content license for allWikimedia Foundation projects, will foster abroader usage of Wikimedia project contentincluding Wikipedia articles as they will bemore interoperable with existing CC BY-SAcontent and easier to re-use.84Assuring this

interoperability certainly means a criti-cal step towards making this freedom work, asLessig commented on the announcement ofthe licensing decision.85There is no doubt ofthe signicance and meaningfulness of thishuge step within the free culture movement,which will hopefully serve as a template forothers. But the general dilemma remains:copyleft licenses automatically restrict therespective content. This sounds particularlyabsurd since the motivation behind copyleft

licenses is to keep the content open andwithin the pool of freely licensed material,while at the same time these licenses restrictthe ability to reuse and remix.

E. Conclusion and perspectives

Creative Commons licenses and other tools43provide an additional option for copyrightcreators and right holders to structure theirrights in a more exible way. In this way,

the best-of both-worlds is offered: a wayto protect creative works while encouragingcertain uses of them, tailored to each cre-ators individual preference. Creative Com-mons global porting project ensures that

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

11/15

2010

Catharina Maracke

141

this new way of balancing copyright can beexercised on an international level and at thesame time helps to increase the global com-mons of easily accessible content. Concur-rently, a network of international legal andtechnical experts has been built to collabo-rate on the internationalization of the coreCreative Commons licensing suite, licensemaintenance and legal commentary on newlicense versions.

Although with the support of the interna-44tional network the Creative Commons li-censing suite has been successfully portedto more than 50 jurisdictions, there are still

some interesting legal questions to be dis-cussed and researched. In particular, ques-tions of Private International Law and howCreative Commons licensing can best inter-act with and become compatible with otheropen content licensing models are two topicsthat need to be addressed in order to com-plete the international project and achievean internationally functioning structure.There is no doubt that there are still manyproblems to be solved, but there is also nodoubt that many of these issues can be re-solved by the international network and theglobal Creative Commons community itself.

1 http://creativecommons.org/international/.

2 The World Intellectual Property Organization has described the Internet as the worlds biggest copying machine.For details, see World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property on the Internet: A survey of is-sues (2002), available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/ecommerce/pdf/survey.pdf.

3 See also Garlick, Creative Commons Licensing Another Option to enable online Business Models, available athttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/creative_commons_418_p2_218kb.pdf.

4 In short, every information ow in the digital environment has the potential for copyright infringement areproduction or a communication to the public (see the general overview Fitzgerald/Olwan, Copyright and Inno-vation in the Digital Age: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) available at http://slconf.uaeu.ac.ae/papers/PDF%201%20English/e9.pdf. For a detailed analysis about the balancing of interests in the European context, see Peukert,Der Schutzbereich des Urheberrechts und das Werk als ffentliches Gut - Insbesondere: Die urheberrechtliche

Relevanz des privaten Werkgenusses in Reto M. Hilty/Alexander Peukert (eds.) Interessenausgleich im Urheber-recht, 2004, pp. 11 46 (pp. 25 et seq.).

5 Creative Commons has made available free legal and technical tools to enable authors and other creators to pub-lish their content more easily, to have their creative works found by others more rapidly, and most importantly,to have their creative works used on more exible terms than the traditional all rights reserved approach ofdefault copyright protection (for a general overview see Garlick, A Review of Creative Commons and ScienceCommons, Educause Review, vol.40, no.5 (September/October 2005), available at http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/AReviewofCreativeCommonsandSci/158002.

6 For details about Creative Commons mission see http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc as well as Gar-lick, Creative Commons Licensing Another Option to enable online Business Models, available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/creative_commons_418_p2_218kb.pdf.

7 Creative Commons was founded in 2001 by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and other Cyberlaw and In-tellectual Property experts. For details, see http://creativecommons.org/about/history/.

8 As an example for the widespread impact around the globe, see also Fitzgerald/Olwan, Copyright and Innovationin the Digital Age: The United Arab Emirates (UAE), available at http://slconf.uaeu.ac.ae/papers/PDF%201%20English/e9.pdf.

9 In this way, the licenses are designed to provide creators with the ability to clearly signal their approval of cer-tain uses of their work whilst reserving some rights in other words some rights reserved as opposed to thedefault all rights reserved level of copyright protection. For further reading, see http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc.

10 The Attribution element can then be mixed and matched with the other terms of the core Creative Commonslicensing suite into the following 6 licenses: Attribution (BY), Attribution ShareAlike (BY-SA), Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC), Attribution NoDerivatives (BY-ND), Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA),Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives (BY-NC-ND). For details see http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/.

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

12/15

11 The rst version of the original Creative Commons licenses allowed for a license without the attribution element(for details see the original legal code of the CC SA license version 1.0, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode). However, most of the users opted for a license requiring attribution, which resultedin a new version of the Creative Commons licensing suite. Since then, Attribution became standard and thenumber of licenses was reduced from a possible eleven to six, making the license selection user interface muchsimpler. For details see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216.

12 See advanced search options at Google, Yahoo, etc. (e.g. http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en).

13 http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License).

14 http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Art_license).

15 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/International_Overview.

16 See archives for each national Creative Commons project, available at http://creativecommons.org/interna-tional, e.g. details for the Serbian project at http://creativecommons.org/international/rs/.

17 http://creativecommons.org/license/.

18 http://creativecommons.org/international/.

19 For details especially regarding the German Creative Commons licenses see Metzger, Free Content licenses underGerman Law. Talk at the Wissenschaftskolleg, Berlin, 17 June 2004 available at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-de/2004-July/000015.html.

20 For details regarding the theory and history of the droit dauteur approach and copyright in Continental Euro-pean droit dauteur jurisdictions, see Wandtkein Wandtke/Bullinger (Eds), Urheberrecht, 3rdedition 2008, Einlei-tung/Introduction marginal number 25 as well as Pessach, The Authors Moral Right of Integrity in Cyberspace A Preliminary Normative Framework, IIC 2003, pp. 250 270 (p. 255).

21

In most European jurisdictions, this is often referred to as an unbreakable bond between author and work.22 See Pessach, The Authors Moral Right of Integrity in Cyberspace, IIC 2003, pp. 250 270 (p. 255).

23 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, as amended on September 28, 1979: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html.

24 See Garlick, Creative Commons Version 3.0 licenses A brief explanation, available at http://wiki.creativecom-mons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization.

25 Article 6bis of the Berne Convention: Independently of the authors economic rights, and even after the transferof the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion,mutilation or other modication of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be

prejudicial to his honor or reputation.

26 See footnote 11: Attribution became standard in version 2.0 of the Creative Commons licenses (http://creative-commons.org/weblog/entry/4216).

27 See Garlick, Creative Commons Version 3.0 licenses A brief explanation, available at http://wiki.creativecom-mons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization

28 For further reading about how a potential waiver has been handled in different jurisdictions, see the detailedreport Moral Rights in Puerto Rico and the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses available at http://mirrors.cre-ativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-rights.pdf.

29

For details regarding the theory and origin of moral rights in France seeSchmidt-Szalewski, Die theoretischen Grund-lagen des franzsischen Urheberrecht im 19. Und 20. Jahrhundert, GRUR Int. 1992, pp. 187 194 (pp. 187 et seq.) aswell as Pessach, The Authors Moral Right of Integrity in Cyberspace, IIC 2003, pp. 250 270 (pp. 250 et seq.).

30 See Rigamonti, Deconstructing Moral Rights, 47 Harv. Intl L. J. 353 (2006).

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

13/15

2010

Catharina Maracke

161

31 For further reading about the discussion in Germany and France, see Metzger, Rechtsgeschfte ber das Urheber-persnlichkeitsrecht nach dem neuen Urhebertragsrecht unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der franzsischenRechtslage, GRUR Int. 2003, page 9 23.

32 Metzger, Rechtsgeschfte ber das Urheberpersnlichkeitsrecht nach dem neuen Urhebertragsrecht unterbesonderer Bercksichtigung der franzsischen Rechtslage, in GRUR Int. 2003, pp. 9 - 23 (pp. 9 et seq.).

33 MetzgerRechtsgeschfte ber das Urheberpersnlichkeitsrecht nach dem neuen Urhebertragsrecht unter beson-derer Bercksichtigung der franzsischen Rechtslage, GRUR Int. 2003, pp. 9 - 23 (pp. 9 et seq.).

34 See the detailed examination about the situation in Spain, Mexico, and other jurisdictions in the report MoralRights in Puerto Rico and the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses available at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-rights.pdf.

35 Dietzin Schricker (Ed), Urheberrecht, 3rdedition 2006, Vor 12 ff., marginal number. 21. See also report MoralRights in Puerto Rico and the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses available at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-rights.pdf.

36 The possibility of a waiver has lead some scholars to question the level of compliance to their international obli-

gations for details, see Dworkin, The Moral Right of the Author: Moral Rights and the Commons Law Countries,19 Columbia VLA J.L. & Arts 229 (1995).

37 Section 25(3) of the Dutch Copyright Act allows authors to waive some of their moral rights (the right to attribu-tion and to oppose slight changes made to the work). However, the moral right (Section 25(1) under d. to opposeany distortion, mutilation or other impairment of the work that could be prejudicial to the name or reputationof the author or to his/her dignity as such cannot be waived. For details, see Hendriks, Developing CC Licensesfur Dutch Creatives, available at http://fr.creativecommons.org/articles/netherlands.htm as well as the detailedreport Moral Rights in Puerto Rico and the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses available at http://mirrors.cre-ativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-rights.pdf.

38 http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=moralrights and http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/ca/english-changes.pdf.

39 See the report Moral Rights in Puerto Rico and the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses available at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-rights.pdf.

40 Article 20 Japanese Copyright Act available at http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/clj.html.

41 Supreme Court of Japan, 28 March 1980: http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judgments/text/1980.03.28-1976.-O-.No.923.html.

42 Tokyo High Court, 21 September 1999,() (Heisei 11 (ne) 1154).

43 Creative Commons licenses version 1.0 did not address moral rights at all. For details see the overview of differ-ent license versions available at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions.

44 See Article 306 of the German Civil Code which states that To the extent that the terms have not become part ofthe contract or are ineffective, the contents of the contract are determined by the statutory provisions (Verbotder geltungserhaltenden Reduktion).

45 Garlick, Creative Commons Version 3.0 licenses A brief explanation, available at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization.

46 This question had to be evaluated and answered for many different jurisdiction licenses. As an example, pleasesee the detailed report for the porting process in Puerto Rico Moral Rights in Puerto Rico and the Creative Com-mons 3.0 licenses available at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-rights.pdf.

47

It has to be emphasized that this approach is only used as a starting point for discussion for each national CCproject. Based on this approach, a specic wording for the respective national jurisdiction license needs to beelaborated and implemented to best match the situation given by the national legislation, which can end upto be the same wording or end up in something more specic, such as the Dutch solution available at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/nl/english-retranslation.pdf, or the wording in the CC licenses forNew Zealand, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/legalcode.

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

14/15

2010


171

48 See Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental rightand lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the eld of intellectual property, which harmo -nizes the situation regarding rental right, lending right and certain related rights as to provide a greater level ofprotection for literary and artistic property in Europe. Similarly to the European situation, most Latin American

jurisdictions recognize neighboring rights or related rights as well. As an example, see the situation in Gua-temala explained in the summary of substantial legal changes for the Guatemalan Creative Commons licensesavailable at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/gt/english-changes.pdf.

49 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection ofdatabases.

50 Whereas the US concept of copyright may protect all creative expressions, including the performing rights, suchrights are separately qualied as related rights in EU jurisdictions. For details see Hendriks, Developing CC li-censes for Dutch Creatives, available at http://fr.creativecommons.org/articles/netherlands.htm.

51 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection ofdatabases.

52 See denition of copyrightable work in Section 2 of the German Copyright Act.

53 For details regarding the US and Dutch use of the term copyright and the addition of related rights and data-base rights see Hendriks, Developing CC licenses for Dutch Creatives, available at http://fr.creativecommons.org/articles/netherlands.htm.

54 See the Dutch Creative Commons licenses version 1.0 and the explanation of the substantial legal changes avail-able at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/nl/english-changes.pdf as well as the German Cre-ative Commons licenses version 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/de/legalcode).

55 See also Hendriks, Developing CC licenses for Dutch Creatives, available at http://fr.creativecommons.org/ar-ticles/netherlands.htm.

56 See e.g. the solution in the Dutch Creative Commons licenses version 3.0: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/nl/english-retranslation.pdf.

57 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_use_of_CC_licenses.

58 http://search.yahoo.com/web/advanced?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501 and http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&output=unclesam&restrict=unclesam.

59 For a detailed report about how Creative Commons licenses have been used by creators and institutions alongwith an explanation of their motivations please see Building and Australasian Commons available at http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/Building_an_Australasian_Commons_book.pdf.

60 http://www.bundesarchiv.de/.

61 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv.

62 http://www.creativecommons.org.au/node/229 and http://www.gilf.gov.au/.

63 For details see http://www.gilf.gov.au/.

64 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_Information_Licensing_Framework and http://www.creative-commons.org.au/node/229.

65 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0040:0049:EN:PDF.

66 Art. 5 II of the Berne Convention:The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality;

such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress affordedto the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. Foran interpretation as conicts rule see Goldstein, International Copyright: Principles, Law and Practice, 2001, page103-104; Katzenbergerin Schricker (Ed), Urheberecht 3rdedition Vor 120ff, marginal number 120; Ulmer, DieImmaterialgterrechte im IPR, 1975, marginal number 1, 16.

8/13/2019 dippadm1268743811.97

15/15

Catharina Maracke

67 See, e.g., Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, 4th edition 2007, pp. 458 et seq.; Boschiero, Infringement ofIntellectual Property Rights, A Commentary on Article 8 of the Rome II Regulation, IX Yearbook of Private Inter-national Law 87, 94 et sequ. (2007).

68 See 301 of American Law Institute, Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, andJudgments in Transnational Disputes, 2007 and Articles 3:102, 3:201, 3:301, 3:601 of European Max Planck Groupon Conict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP), Principles for Conict of Laws in Intellectual Property, Second

Preliminary Draft (6 June 2009), available at http://www.cl-ip.eu.

69 Jaeger/Metzger, Open Source Software, 2ndedition 2006, marginal number 356

70 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:177:0006:0016:EN:PDF.

71 Jaeger /Metzger, Open Source Software, 2ndedition 2006, marginal number 356.

72 One possible wording for such a clause could be: This licenses shall apply only if German copyright law is ap-plicable. German copyright law is to be applied if you copy or distribute the work or make it available on Germanterritory. In this case, the license shall also be governed by German law. For details, see Metzger, Free Contentlicenses under German Law. Talk at the Wissenschaftskolleg, Berlin, June 17, 2004 available at http://lists.ibiblio.

org/pipermail/cc-de/2004-July/000015.html.

73 http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/.

74 For details please see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html.

75 See Liang, Guide to Open Content Licenses - available at http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/mdr/pubsfolder/opencontent/.

76 For details, see Lessig, CC in Review: Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, available at: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709.

77

Just recently, the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation board approved the adoption of the Cre-ative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license as the main content license for Wikipedia and other Wikimediasites. For details and background see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15411.

78 See Lessigs example at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709.

79 The old version 2.5 of the CC BY-SA similarly required derivatives to be licensed under the terms of this license,a later version of this license with the same license elements as this license, or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license thatcontains the same elements as this license.

80 Garlick, Creative Commons Version 3.0 licenses A brief explanation, available at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization.

81 E.g., under either the CC BY-SA license or the certied CC compatible license. See Garlick, Creative Com-mons Version 3.0 licenses A brief explanation, available at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization.

82 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10443 - details available at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1-.3.html http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers.

83 http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/04/wikipedians-to-vote-on-creative-commons-license-adop-tion.ars.

84 See press release on dual licensing (21 May 2009) available at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Dual_license_vote_May_2009.

85 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Dual_license_vote_May_2009.

dippadm1268743811.97

Documents