This document discusses issues around sharing content licensed under Creative Commons (CC) licenses on online platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It considers options like platforms changing their terms of service, CC defining platforms and allowing sharing via sublicensing, or licensors offering dual licenses. The document notes costs of doing nothing could include reduced sharing or unintended violations. It also explains sublicensing and challenges around using it to resolve conflicts between CC licenses and platform terms of service. In the end, it questions if CC's direct licensing model is still appropriate and discusses a compromise option that may allow sharing without full sublicensing.

1. Platform terms
and CC licenses
Tomoaki Watanabe
Creative Commons Japan/ Keio U.
For Creative Commons Global Summit,
Seoul, Korea, Oct 14-17, 2015
This work was partly supported by JSPS KAKEN Grant 2 5 3 8 0 1 3 2.

2. What do stakeholders want?
(just guessing)
- Licensor releasing work under a CC license
Okay with the work disseminated via social media
- Licensee posting contents to the web
Wants to share works on platforms
- Platform aggregating user-posted content
Worry-free, risk-free right to use contents

3. Major conceivable options
1. Platforms do something
Change ToS
2. CC does something
Define “platforms” and allow sharing on them via sublicensing
scheme
3. Licensors do something
Dual licensing: CC license + platform-license

4. More options
4. Nobody changes anything
(except for interpretations of terms)
a. uploading alone is not violation with many terms
b. only when a content is used by platforms, …
 its licensee (=uploader) is in trouble
 the platform operator is in trouble at the same time
 platforms might be careful to begin with for ensuring the copyright
/licensing status

5. Cost of doing nothing
Reduced use
- Strict licensees avoid posting CC’d materials to platforms.
 Not that many understand technicalities of the licenses
Violation via posting
- Strictly speaking: no posting of CC’d materials by licensees
to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, etc.
 Actually, postings occur, and authors find them fine.
Violation via use by platforms
- If platforms use them, it might not be okay
 Actually, platforms do not really exploit them much at all.

6. Sublicensing – what it is
“Sublicensing” … licensing by a licensee.
a poet >> a twitter user tweeting poetry >> Twitter as a platform
Can the twitter user give license on poetry to Twitter?
Usually no.
If sublicensing is allowed, perhaps yes.

7. Sublicensing – costs and risks
costs and risks
- License more difficult to read& understand
- Sublicense working as “loophole” (platforms can disregard the license conditions)
- Blanket permission to sublicense possibly invalid?
What if CC licenses…
1) limit the scope of sublicensing? -> solve conflict with only some ToS
 Users do not quite understand which platforms are compatible, which are
conflicting  compile and maintain a List of Certified Sites’ ToS?  high maintenance
cost
2) allow some sublicensing + absolve licensee of any posting to platforms?  Most of the
violation resolved  platforms still not getting sufficient license, and not informed of it 
Posters still liable for misrepresentation/ granting license without proper authorization

8. Reflections/ Macro view
- Even major social media players are not ready to handle sharing and
remix
- CC’s fundamental architecture is based on the direct licensing
between the licensor and downstream users: inflexible for responding
to unconceived situations
Is this a good thing to keep?
Is it worth paying the cost of changing it?

9. Annex: a compromise option
No sublicensing.
Grant permission covering the licensee’s act of posting.
Grant limited sublicensing capabilities to the licensee.
- “You may post the Licensed Material to any Online Platforms, and agree the
terms of Online Platforms related to the Licensed Rights in Licensed Materials
that You need to agree for the said posting.”
- “Licensor will not seek any damages from You regarding your act of the said
posting of LM”
- “For avoidance of doubt, Licensor will not grant Online Platforms any additional
license related to LM, and therefore Online Platforms are still expected to follow
the terms of this License.”
 Licensee can post LM to platforms. Platforms are still expected to follow CC
license terms.

10. License
License: Creative Commons BY 4.0. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>
Additional information to help your use of this work: “copyright notice,” “a notice that
refers to the disclaimer of warranties,” and “a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material”
do not exist for this work. Creator is Tomoaki Watanabe
Given the above, the attribution may look like this:
“By Tomoaki Watanabe
License: Creative Commons BY 4.0. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>”
Or this, in case of Adapted Material:
“This work is based partly on a slide set by Tomoaki Watanabe. The work had the
following license notice.
License: Creative Commons BY 4.0. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>”