[Wikimedia-l] [cc-licenses] The termination provision

Diane Peters diane at creativecommons.org
Mon Aug 27 17:18:42 UTC 2012

I agree that there could be any number of things that affect it, but I'm
simply stating the default, and emphasized that term in the reply below.

I could imagine any number of ways that a licensee could argue the license
doesn't automatically terminate, perhaps conduct by licensor or otherwise.
 Probably myriad ways depending on jurisdiction. There's no way to preclude
all of that, nor would we want to. I'm simply stating that as steward,
we've designed the default operation of the license as such: as conditional
permission to use the work, and when those conditions are violated the
permission goes away.

Eager to hear what others think on the merits of having a cure/provisional
reinstatement period inserted, as this is an important policy decision for
this d2-d3 period.


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com>wrote:

> (Diane, I think the interpretation of "termination" is not as glass
> clear as you imply. It is likely to be decided by the courts in the
> way you state, but that is not necessarily obvious in the language. If
> a rental contract terminates for some reason (as in "if you stop
> paying the rent, the rental contract will automatically terminate
> after 1 month rent is overdue") there is nothing in that statement
> that prevents renewal of the rentral contract. You assert that the CC
> license does prevent a renewal and I accept that this is the
> intention, but:)
> ---
> Is the possibility of a renewal of a licence contract between 2
> parties, after the violation causing a termination undesirable?
> If yes, why so?
> The cited FAQ (
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_happens_if_I_want_to_use_the_work_in_a_way_that_is_not_permitted_by_the_license.3F
> ) is dealing exactly with quite a different situation: someone wants
> to continue using a work in violation of the license. Here we discuss:
> someone has (let us assume unintentionally) violated the license,
> corrected the error and wants to start using the work again now. The
> option to contact the copyright owners is not available because they
> choose to be not contactable, relying on the CC license instead.
> What is the contingency plan?
> ----
> I therefore propose that CC 4.0 the interpretation of termination be
> amended to allow a renewal of the license once the violation of the
> license is stopped or fixed (e.g. proper attribution added).
> Gregor
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
Creative Commons
cell: +1 503-803-8338
skype:  peterspdx
email:diane at creativecommons.org


Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your
particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
advice from a licensed attorney.

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list