Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/99

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
- 86 - CHAPTER 4

work on the top right row. If there is a checkmark in the box where that row and column intersect, then the works under those two licenses can be remixed. If there is an “X” in the box, then the works may not be remixed unless an exception or limitation applies.

When using the chart, you can determine which license to use for your adaptation by choosing the more restrictive of the two licenses on the works you’re combining. While this technically isn’t your only option for your adapter’s license, it is best practice because it eases reuse for downstream users.

Final Remarks
It can be intimidating to approach remixing in a way that is consistent with copyright. In this section, hopefully you gained some tools for how to approach the task. The threshold question is whether an adaptation under copyright is created. Once that is answered, you have the information you need to determine what works from the commons you can incorporate into your work.

4.5 | ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Additional Details on the Court Cases in Section 4.2 “Things to Consider after CC Licensing”
In the FedEx Office case, the decision was affirmed by the U. S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated: “In sum, the unambiguous terms of License permit FedEx to copy the Materials on behalf of a school district exercising rights under the License and charge that district for that copying at a rate more than FedEx’s cost, in the absence of any claim that the school district is using the Materials for other than a ‘non-Commercial purpose.’ The motion to dismiss is granted.”

With the Office Depot case, Great Minds claimed that the copy store had violated the BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for the same reasons FedEx Office did; however, Great Minds also claimed that because Office Depot had reached out to school districts to solicit reproduction orders, the solicitation was additional evidence of a license violation. The other difference with the FedEx Office case was that Great Minds and Office Depot had entered into a contract specifying that Office Depot could reproduce the same publicly funded educational materials for school districts and would pay royalties to Great Minds.[1]

The U. S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed with Office Depot, stating that it “concludes that the Creative Commons Public License unambiguously grants the licensee schools and school districts the


NOTE

  1. According to the complaint, this contract was entered into while FedEx Office was pending. However, once the district court granted the motion to dismiss in favor of FedEx Office, Office Depot terminated its contract with Great Minds shortly before it expired and, in reliance on the FedEx Office decision, continued to reproduce Great Minds’ materials for school districts without paying royalties to Great Minds.