{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttributionNoderivs30Romania","title":"Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 3.0 Romania","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ro/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY-ND element set of the Creative Commons 3.0 port for Romania and the grant and restriction sections support it: the attribution and notice duties hang on the acts that share the work with the public, and the prohibitions follow the restrictions clause. The legal text was read in Romanian. Corrections applied: dct:source, odrl:target, dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer requoted from this element set. What remains are proposals that touch the whole Creative Commons family rather than this record, chiefly the express prohibition of sublicensing.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:source","description":"The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal code page of this port states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ro/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair, legal code plus deed. Added.","action":"applied","change":"dct:source <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ro/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal code URL implies CC-BY-ND-3.0-RO, which the SPDX licence list does not define, so none was invented. Of the thirty five records in this review group only the six German ones take an SPDX identifier.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port settles the sui generis database right expressly. Section 1 defines \"Opera\" to include \"o baza de date in conformitate cu definitiile din legislatia in vigoare privind drepturile de autor si drepturile conexe\" (a database as defined by the copyright and neighbouring rights legislation in force), Section 3 grants \"in cazul in care opera este o baza de date, dreptul de a extrage si/sau a reutiliza parti substantiale din Opera\" (where the work is a database, the right to extract and reuse substantial parts of it) and closes with \"Daca Licentiatorul este titularul drepturilor sui-generis asupra unei baze de date, in conformitate cu legea nationala care implementeaza Directiva Europeana privind Bazele de Date, Licentiatorul va renunta la aceste drepturi\" (if the Licensor holds sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive, the Licensor waives them). Section 4 adds that the restrictions do not apply to the parts of the Work that qualify only under the Romanian sui generis database right. Because the legal text names databases as licensed subject matter and disposes of the database maker's right in the grant itself, dcmitype:Dataset was added here rather than left as a proposal, which is how the same question was decided for the Portuguese, Czech and Azerbaijani ports. The ports in this review group whose text has no database clause at all, Ecuador and Brazil, keep the proposal.","action":"applied","change":"odrl:target [ a odrl:AssetCollection ;\n        dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork,\n            dcmitype:Dataset ] ;"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The modelled permissions follow the grant. Section 3 (Autorizare) grants reproduction, incorporation into Collections, distribution and communication to the public, and, where the Work is a database, extraction and reuse of substantial parts. The right to create Adaptations is simply absent from the list. The record models this as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present and dalicc:ModifiedWorks, with odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks moved to odrl:prohibition, which is the NoDerivatives pattern of the 4.0 parent CC-BY-ND-4.0. cc:CommercialUse is permitted, which follows from this element set carrying no commercial restriction.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"A NoDerivatives record that permits modification. The record permits odrl:modify with an attribution, notice and modification notice duty, and permits dalicc:ModifiedWorks, while the licence allows only the technically necessary format changes: the Romanian port reaches the NoDerivatives result by omission: Section 3 of the by-nd and by-nc-nd legal code drops \"dreptul de a crea si de a reproduce Adaptari\" from the list of granted rights, and Section 4(b) of the other element sets, which governs the sharing of Adaptations, is absent. The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 is modelled the same way and its own review record carries the same finding, so this belongs in one sweep over every NoDerivatives record of the library rather than in a change to this file. Recorded as major because the text of this port is explicit. Not applied, pending the association's decision.","action":"superseded","superseded_by":2,"change":"remove:\n  odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action odrl:modify ;\n        odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action cc:Attribution ],\n            [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action cc:Notice ],\n            [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action dalicc:modificationNotice ] ] ;\n  odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:ModifiedWorks ] ;"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. \"Licentiatul nu are dreptul de a sublicentia Opera.\" (the Licensee has no right to sublicense the Work), Section 4(a). The vocabulary already has dalicc:sublicense, but no record in the library uses it and its skos:note says so, and the same sentence stands in every Creative Commons 2.0 and 3.0 record, so adding it to the thirty five ports of this review group alone would split the compatibility behaviour of one family. Proposed as one library wide correction, together with an update of the vocabulary note. Other review groups made the same recommendation.","action":"superseded","superseded_by":2,"change":"odrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:sublicense ] ;"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which the licence supports: the work may be shared only under the terms of this licence and the licensee may not offer or impose terms that alter or restrict it or the rights of downstream recipients. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which the 3.0 text supports better than the 2.0 text did, because the no endorsement rule sits in the licence body rather than in the Creative Commons notice printed around it. Section 4(e): the Licensee \"nu are dreptul de a sustine sau a sugera, direct sau indirect, orice legatura, finantare sau sustinere din partea Autorului, Titularului de Drepturi Conexe, Licentiatorului si/sau partii desemnate de acestia pentru atribuire\". odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks are prohibited, which matches the NoDerivatives grant.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The attribution and notice duties are present and supported: the licence requires a copy of the licence or its URI with every copy shared, that the notices referring to the licence and to the warranty clause be kept intact, and that credit be given, and in this port credit is owed to the \"Autor\" and to the \"Titular de drepturi conexe\" or to the party they designate, and the grant reaches phonograms, videograms, broadcasts and databases, since Section 1 brings all of them inside the definition of the Work. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by distributing or communicating the work to the public rather than by private use. In this element set the record still hangs a dalicc:modificationNotice duty on odrl:modify, which is the modelling defect recorded above.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"The clause was quoted from the wrong element set. The warranty clause of the Romanian port carries an internal cross reference to the royalty paragraph, and the letter and article of that reference differ per element set: the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike legal codes say \"articolul 3 litera (f)\", this one says \"articolul 3 litera (d)\". The record carried the Attribution wording. Requoted from this legal code, so that the field is now verbatim. Section 5 is headed \"Garantie si exonerarea de raspundere\" and carries two things at once: an affirmative good faith representation by the Licensor that it has obtained the rights needed and that the Work infringes nobody, and then the disclaimer sentence \"Cu exceptia cazurilor prevazute expres in prezenta licenta sau intr-un alt acord scris, sau cerute de legea aplicabila, Opera este pusa la dispozitie fara vreo garantie de orice fel, expresa sau tacita\". The record holds the whole section, which is the accurate reading of the field, since the section does contain a disclaimer. Section 6 (Limitarea raspunderii) sits in dalicc:LiabilityLimitation on its own.","action":"applied","change":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer \"\"\"... mecanismele de gestiune colectiva obligatorie descrise la articolul 3 litera (d); ...\"\"\""},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry are not visible in the record: the reservation of unnamed rights, the direct licence that every recipient receives from the licensor, the automatic termination on breach with the survival list, the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs, and the royalty collection arrangements. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way, so this is a family observation rather than a defect of this record.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Romania, which matches the country of the legal code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ro/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant for the duration of the applicable copyright. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit: the grant itself is worldwide. The port names no governing law.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Section 4(a): \"Licentiatul nu are dreptul de a distribui sau de a comunica public Opera folosind masuri tehnice de protectie care restrang posibilitatea tertilor dobanditori de a-si exercita drepturile obtinute in conditiile prezentei licente.\" Proposed term: dalicc:applyTechnicalProtectionMeasures, an odrl:Action to be used as an odrl:Prohibition. Not modelled, because bending an existing term would be worse than the gap.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Two clauses of the licence body have no vocabulary term. Section 7: the licence terminates automatically on any breach, licences granted downstream survive, and Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 survive termination. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. Section 8: on every reproduction or communication to the public in digital form the Licensor offers the recipient a licence to the Work on the same terms. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Moral rights have no vocabulary term, in either direction. Section 4 closes with \"Drepturile morale raman nemodificate, in masura in care sunt recunoscute si nu pot face obliectul unor renuntari in conformitate cu legea aplicabila\" (moral rights remain unaffected so far as applicable law recognises them and does not allow a waiver), the deferring formula. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction for a clause that binds the licensee and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion for one in which the licensor undertakes not to assert them.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The royalty collection arrangement has no vocabulary term. Section 4(f) splits royalty collection three ways: a mandatory collective management regime (private copying levy is the example given), where the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect through the competent collecting society for commercial and non commercial use alike; an optional collective management regime (public lending right is the example), reserved for commercial use and waived for non commercial use; and voluntary collective management, waived for non commercial use and reserved for commercial use. The societies are described generically, none is named. Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a counterpart for the waiver. It is one of the few places where the ports of one version really differ from each other.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check with the forty one axioms of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_default.ttl reports no conflict, before and after the corrections, and the pre review baseline listed none for this record either.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Port of CC-BY-ND-4.0, the 4.0 International record of the same element set. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties, and the same asset types too, now that the database clause of this port has brought dcmitype:Dataset into odrl:target. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text, the clause texts and the version specific clauses of 3.0 that the model does not carry, chiefly the express prohibition of sublicensing, the technological measures clause, the royalty collection arrangement and the moral rights clause. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from the other records of the BY-ND element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The record said nothing about the sui generis database right although the port's own text settles it, which the rubric 2 finding of this review read off the legal code: Section 1 defines Opera to include \"o baza de date in conformitate cu definitiile din legislatia in vigoare privind drepturile de autor si drepturile conexe\", Section 3 grants \"in cazul in care opera este o baza de date, dreptul de a extrage si/sau a reutiliza parti substantiale din Opera\" and closes with \"Daca Licentiatorul este titularul drepturilor sui-generis asupra unei baze de date, in conformitate cu legea nationala care implementeaza Directiva Europeana privind Bazele de Date, Licentiatorul va renunta la aceste drepturi\", and Section 4 adds that the restrictions do not apply to the parts of the Work that qualify only under the Romanian sui generis database right. Exercising that right is therefore permitted by this licence and dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights is now a permission of the record. It carries no duty, which is where the 3.0 ports part company with the 4.0 text their parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 models: Section 4(c) of 4.0 carries the conditions of Section 3(a) over to the database layer, while this port takes its own restrictions off the material that qualifies only under the database right. Under the proposed default rule eu-sui-generis-db of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_eu.ttl the database right is not granted unless the licence grants it, so a record that is silent reads as a licence that keeps the right back, which this text contradicts.","action":"applied","change":"odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights ] ;"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:terminatesOnBreach","description":"The termination clause of this port reads: \"Această licenţă este reziliată de plin drept, iar drepturile acordate prin intermediul său vor înceta în mod implicit în cazul în care Licenţiatul săvârşeşte orice fel de încălcare a condiţiilor licenţei.\" The licence ends automatically on a breach and this version of the text has no reinstatement clause, so dalicc:terminatesOnBreach is true and no dalicc:curePeriod is written, as on the unported record of the same version.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Creative Commons 3.0 port: Romania (RO)","port_of":"CC-BY-ND-4.0","variant_kind":"jurisdiction-port","notes":"The parent is the 4.0 International record of the same element set, since the library holds no unported and no International 3.0 record; the version difference, 3.0 against 4.0, is therefore part of the port relation and not only the jurisdiction. The 3.0 text differs from 4.0 in substance as well: it prohibits sublicensing expressly, it forbids technological protection measures, it has no thirty day cure period for a breach, and it settles the royalty collection question and the moral rights question per jurisdiction. None of that is visible in the model. This port is a translation as well as a jurisdiction port, so dalicc:translationOf would fit it when the term exists. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}