There is a very complex API endpoint with a documentation licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Due to its complexity, I am considering developing a commercial visual drag & drop editor (single-page web application) to make working with that API a lot easier.
I would like to take parts of the documentation and display it in the editor. For example, when the user is editing a certain parameter, I want to show the CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed content for that parameter. It's okay to show the licensed content even behind a paywall 1, 2. Obviously I need to display an attribution, which is not an issue.
The documentation is in plaintext, so I intend to write a parser to convert it into something more manageable, such as JSON. This is expressly allowed under CC. I can do this in the backend, so if I don't share the JSON I don't even need to worry about section 3 (attribution, sharealike) of CC BY-SA 4.0 for that JSON.
However, I struggle with the definition of "Adapted Material". Answers to similar questions on OpenSource StackExchange seem to conclude that as long as there is no ancestral path from the editor to the documentation, the editor would not be considered an adapted material:
- What do I need to share if I include CC-BY-SA artwork in my software?
- Is content licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 allowed in app stores?
However, reading the following CC statements seem to suggest the editor could be actually considered an adapted material of the documentation:
- https://creativecommons.org/faq/#combining-and-adapting-cc-material
- https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-is-an-adaptation
- https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-create-a-collection-that-includes-a-work-offered-under-a-cc-license-which-licenses-may-i-choose-for-the-collection
And particularly:
Quote from the practical guide:
The distinction between collections and combinations of works will most likely be an important factor under every jurisdiction. In a collection, e.g. an anthology or a catalogue, a number of works are simply put together for publishing. The different contents stand alone as separate and distinguishable works, so their identification and the identification of each author are unproblematic. Hence, to include a work into a collection will usually not be considered an adaptation.
On the other hand, combining works will in many cases have the effect of “entwining” the individual works causing them to lose their individual expression. Depending on the technique, work combinations tend to display their own aesthetic expression which differs from the individual works which were used. If this is the case, the result will usually have to be considered as “adapted material” and the ND license will not permit its publication unless allowed under the applicable copyright law.
One determining differentiator between collections and combinations is whether the individual works remain separate and distinguishable in the given context. If the work itself was modified, e.g. a text was curtailed or a song remixed, the ND restriction would apply in any case, since mashing up and remixing will usually involve such modifications. If a verbatim copy of the work was, however, simply grouped with others, the result would in many cases be a collection rather than a combination, i.e. there would be no adaptation.
If verbatim copies of works were combined to create a new comprehensive work with its own aesthetic expression, the new work would also have to be considered “adapted material.” Here, the combined material would not be “grouped” but rather “merged” resulting in the emergence of a new and larger work which contains both, own and reused material. Examples for this would include the use of a copyright-protected image in a movie, the use of a copyright-protected cartoon character in a video or the above-mentioned use of music tracks in moving images.
In light of the above, it would seem appropriate to adopt the following principle as a general rule of thumb: Every time existing material is merged into a larger work which has a character of its own, the works are adapted in the terms of copyright and the CC ND restriction. The more the individual works are used “as-is” and “stand-alone,” i.e. they are only grouped, the less likely their combination/collection will be considered as adapted material.
This explanation seems to contrast with the one provided in other related questions 1, 2 and give me the impression that even if you use a CC BY-SA 4.0 protected image in an application, where the image is presented in a way to merge with surrounding visual expression, such application would be considered an adapted material because at that point its a combination of works, not a simple collection.
So hopefully you can see my struggle with adapted materials. The quote above suggests using any CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed content in a software application would require that application itself to be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (or compatible license), as long as the licensed content merges with the visual expression of the application. I guess the only way to prevent that is to very clearly make the licensed content pop-out of the application visuals, with a proper attribution footnote or something like that.
Thus, if I show the documentation snippet for a specific parameter in a way that blends with the UI, that would make the app adapted material, while having the content pop out of the UI and make it look quite foreign, it would no longer be adapted material?
Related:
How can I use programming documentation without infringing copyright?
