Now this is an interesting case, illustrating the complexity of Fair Use. But couldn't all news agencies claim that same thing, then? In other words, they can just use any CC Licensed work without attribution?

hmmmm .. then why is the second point needed. Seems to me that removing attribution is automatic and all the licensor needs to do is notify the creator of the adapted/modified/used work to remove attribution, right?

But if they do that after a work has been adapted/remixed/used, that wouldn't matter, right? Since, they can only do so moving forward. Previous versions would still need to exist? Can the authors pull that version and replace it with one not requiring attribution?

This is a great example that begs this question:

If the online format is under a CC License and/or permits download? Does it also permit printing the cards, laminate them, and use them in the game? Or if it's a book that is selling physically but provides online downloads, can someone print the book for free?

Is that a conflict? Who controls that, if at all?

effects?

hmmm ... so faculty can run a text mining program and analyze it but cannot share the analysis? They seem to do this all the time?

Or are we talking about sharing an adapted form of the text? like a file of text cleaned up?

I am confused.

If I adapt a textbook for teaching my class (let's say the text book is in Arabic and I needed to use it but produce English translations, along with editing sections I don't need .. etc. I imagine that this wouldn't be a permitted use of the adapted work, even if the original work has a BY NC ND license.

I wonder if rewording this in terms of NOT adaptation would help.

Every other example is listed as a NOT adaptation that reading this as an adaptation threw me off ..

Or perhaps have two sections that sample adapted and not adapted works instances?

Of course unless that particular bullet was meant to say NOT adaptive

Ok, so I read this section three times and have yet to find the answer here, or perhaps I am missing this. Where can I find out how many permutations are possible of these six licenses? Meaning, wouldn't licensors be able to combine any (or all aspects of unique license components into a version that serves their need)? So for example, theoretically, I can create a license that is

CC BY-SA-ND-NC (which is not listed, so I am guessing one of these is incompatible with the rest or not needed)

Anyhow, can a licensor do that type of requirement?

Question: If a work, say a photo, is public domain in Germany (since it's life +50) and was published in a work there (say a website or a book), and I want to use it in an article i am writing in the US, wouldn't be public domain anyhow? Or will the copyright of that photo automatically become life+70?

Let's say I am talking about a photo of German governors that was taken in Germany by a German who's no longer living (and none of the subjects either).

What is meant by "has no legal effect"? If the work is already in public domain, wouldn't that be the end of story?

Also, if this mark is on a work, I presume it only applies in the US? Or do they check that it is public domain by all standards?