Can I quote an article which license is CC-BY-ND I have a question about direct quotations (i.e. "copy-and-paste" portions of a work - with ellipses "[...]" if necessary -) and paraphrasing the content of a text article which license is CC-BY-ND. As far as I can understand, I cannot produce something which qualifies as a "Derivative Work" from the original article (it's a text article, published on a website), but does that mean I'm unable to: to share a work which quotes those articles (there is more than one, all with the same license), directly with quotation marks or by paraphrasing the content? to share a work which summarizes the ideas written in one or more of those articles? to share a work which summarizes the ideas written in one or more of those articles and adds some personal opinions/instructions on how to follow those articles advice? I understand that the definition of adapted material of that license is: Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor but how are the former points related with this definition? Thanks in advance.
The licence does not allow you to do this However, copyright law may. You work is (probably) an adaptation within the terms of the licence and these are not allowed. So, put the licence aside and consider if your use is fair use or fair dealing; if it is, you are allowed to do it notwithstanding the licence.
The CC license scheme has a limited set of combinable menu items, where certain conditions are encoded with specific language in the license. In CC-BY-NC this involves a definition: NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange. Let's say that this is an accounting program, and businesses would use it to gain a commercial advantage (e.g. not having to spend capital on a fancy paid program, reduce expenses owing to the need to hire additional bookkeeping staff). Such a use could be considered "Commercial" (would not be NonCommercial). If I were to use the program for household bookkeeping, since I am not engaged in commerce, I do not gain compensation or commercial advantage. And even if I happen to run a craft side business with a couple of sales every year, my use is primarily intended to be for personal convenience. At the end, they modify NonCommercial more narrowly, saying that you can "sell" the software using not money, but other copyrighted material – so a program-for-program exchange is allowed. Then there is the License Grant: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only. There does not exist a CC license specifically tailored to allowing "use in business" but excluding "sale of copies". In order to do that, you would have to write your own license (or hire an attorney to do that), and then you would have to distribute the work with that license. Another approach is to model the license based on the StackExchange TOS. There is a superficial problem (in this q&amp;a, which I expect will eventually disappear, and also raised here), that the SE TOS seems contradictory, by saying that material is licenses under CC-SA terms, but then the terms are made more restrictive (which contradicts the CC-SA license). The SE license containse in §13 a merger clause: This Agreement (including the Privacy Policy), as modified from time to time, constitutes the entire agreement between You, the Network and Stack Exchange with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement replaces all prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, written or oral, regarding the subject matter hereof. When there is an apparent conflict, the SE terms win (as far as I can see). Therefore you might include an overriding provision in your license, which says something like "sale of the content is forbidden, but use in business is allowed" (don't use that literally). Your attorney (get one) could professionally advise you as to the most efficient way to get what you want. A remote third option is to explain to the CC people what you want, and maybe they would be willing to create a new license parameter.
According to the current version of the TOS: You own the rights to the content you create and post on Medium. By posting content to Medium, you give us a nonexclusive license to publish it on Medium Services, including anything reasonably related to publishing it (like storing, displaying, reformatting, and distributing it). In consideration for Medium granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Medium may enable advertising on the Services, including in connection with the display of your content or other information. We may also use your content to promote Medium, including its products and content. We will never sell your content to third parties without your explicit permission. This explicitly says you own your content, although Medium has some rights to do some things. And they won't sell it without permission, so unless Medium itself is publishing this book, it would seem to be copyright infringement. (Of course, I don't know what the TOS said when you originally wrote the article.) If what was copied was not copyrightable (like a quote from the Constitution, or a simple uncreative graph of something obvious) then it wouldn't be infringement. But your article was probably more than that.
It's hard to say, under the Twitter TOS. They do not claim that copyright is transferred to them: &quot;You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content)&quot;. But you do license the content: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services. The totality of conditions, including the Twitter Rules, is ever-evolving and not apparently contained in a single link. From what I can tell, there is no condition that prohibits a user from copying tweets into a book. There are numerous statements about &quot;respecting copyright&quot; which refer to taking material that is not licensed to Twitter and redistributing: nothing about redistributing licensed material.A plain reading of the first bold sentence says that you can make your content available to the world, not restricted to &quot;retweeting&quot;.
Not very novel What you are talking about is a derivative work. This is arguably the most famous example: It's an interesting example because Leonardo da Vinci did not have copyright in the original but Marcel Duchamp and Francis Picabia do have copyright in the derivative. Even though the changes are physically small, they are enough. A crucial factor in current legal analysis of derivative works is transformativeness, largely as a result of the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The Court's opinion emphasized the importance of transformativeness in its fair use analysis of the parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" involved in the Campbell case. In parody, as the Court explained, the transformativeness is the new insight that readers, listeners, or viewers gain from the parodic treatment of the original work. As the Court pointed out, the words of the parody "derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the Orbison [Pretty Woman] song" is. For an author to have copyright in the derivative they must: Meet the (low) threshold of originality for copyright to exist. Make their derivative lawfully - either because they have permission or because their use falls under an exception to copyright like fair use or fair dealing. However, they do not have copyright in the original elements. For example, I could take the Mona Lisa and give her different clothes, a different background or a hat I will not be infringing their copyright. If I give her a different style of moustache? However, there is an issue with "I have copyright on the contents of the post" when you don't. Even if your work is derivative, you do not have copyright in the original parts and do not have the right to licence them. So, for example, this post is a derivative work of the Wikipedia page linked to above and I have copyright in my original contributions because: They meet the threshold of originality I have permission to make the derivative either through the Wikipedia licence or because my use is fair use. I can give Stack Exchange a licence for my work but I cannot give them a licence for the original work including, for example, the image and quote above. So, someone could quote my entire answer subject to the licence or fair work, but they couldn't copy just the image or quote.
It is legsl to include references showing readers where facts you include in your article were derived, or where they can be supported. Indeed academic ethics generally require doing so, although there is (in most cases) no legal requirement to do so. Listing the title, author, and publication information of a source is not an infringement of copyright. That J. Jones published an article on &quot;How to Find the Purple Moth&quot; [imaginary example] in volume 28 of the Journal of Moth Science is a fact.Facts are never protected by copyright. Indeed in US law 17 USC 102(b) provides that: b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The laws of other countries are similar on this point. Indeed I do not know of any country in which facts are protected by copyright. So, including such references is fully legal, and no permission from the sources being cited is required. This is true whatever form the reference takes. In particular, if an online address for the content is included, this is still true. I do not know whether Medium, or any other specific publishing platform, will pat fees to authors based on clik-thru from such citations. That depends on their particular policies, which might be found in their Terms of Service or other policy document.
What the CC-BY-SA license does here is to contractify moral rights. Many countries have a right to be recognized as the author for your artistic works. This “moral right” is somewhat independent from the economic aspects of copyright, and is often not transferable. For example, this answer is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 but I am subject to German law. I cannot assign or transfer my moral rights, though I could decide to not exercise them (e.g. by answering anonymously, or by using the CC-0 instrument). Now in the US, the situation would be very different. The US technically recognize that moral rights exist, but don't really protect them. Copyright can be transferred freely. If the new copyright holder issues a CC-BY-SA license, they and not the original creator might have to be attributed. Your question is a slightly different scenario: first, the original creator issues a CC-BY-SA license which requires reasonable attribution to the original creator. Then the copyright is transferred. Can the new copyright holder require existing attributions to be updated? I don't think so. The attributions were correct at the time when the license was issued. However, the licensor does have the right to request removal of attributions per section 3(a)(3). Is it possible to only transfer the right to attribution without other aspects of copyright? From my European perspective this is exactly the wrong way around: economic aspects would be more transferable than moral rights. But either way, transferring only a right to attribution without other aspects of copyright makes little sense. If the purpose of attribution is to credit the original creator, that cannot be meaningfully transferred because only the creator is the creator. If the purpose of attribution is to indicate the (current) copyright holder, that can be transferred but not independently of other aspects of copyright. Adding a notice that suggests that you hold the copyright if you do not could be fraudulent.
Ideas are not protected by copyright, only arrangements of words are protected. If you &quot;rephrase&quot; by only a minor change of wording, leaving much of the wording intact, that is still a copyright infringement unless an exception such as fair use or fair dealing applies (and that seems a bit doubtful in this case). If you &quot;rephrase&quot; so that the wording is quite different, even though the idea is the same, there is probably no infringement. Copying elements of computer code or other IT commands that are essential to making an example work is not infringement. Where there is only one or a very small number of ways to naturally express a fact, copying such expression is not infringement, as facts are not protected by copyright. Adding examples but keeping significant wording unchanged is still likely to be infringement.