{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttributionNoncommercialNoderivs30France","title":"Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 France","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/fr/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY-NC-ND element set of the Creative Commons 3.0 port for France and it does so correctly: the NonCommercial element prohibits cc:CommercialUse, the NoDerivatives element prohibits odrl:derive, the attribution and notice duties hang on the acts that make the work public. The legal text was read in French and the permissions, prohibitions and duties all follow from the grant and restriction sections of the port. Corrections applied: dct:source, dcmitype:Dataset in odrl:target, which the database rights clause of this port supports expressly. What remains are proposals that touch the whole Creative Commons family rather than this record: the express prohibition of sublicensing, and the modelling of NoDerivatives records, which permit dalicc:ModifiedWorks against the text.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:source","description":"The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal-code page states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/fr/, 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-nc-nd/3.0/fr/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal-code URL implies CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0-FR, which the SPDX licence list does not define: of the ported 3.0 licences SPDX knows only the Austrian, Australian, German, Dutch, United States and IGO ones. No identifier was invented, and none of the forty two records in this review group carries one.","action":"none"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:title","description":"The record is titled \"Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 France\", while Creative Commons calls the 3.0 element set NoDerivs and only renamed it NoDerivatives in 4.0. The library titles all ninety seven of its NoDerivatives records the same way and dct:alternative carries the port abbreviations, so this is a library wide naming convention rather than a defect of this record; noted, not changed.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork alone, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port licenses database rights expressly. Article 3 grants, over and above the copyright acts, the right to \"extraire et reutiliser des parties substantielles\" when the work is a database protected by the database producer right, the definition of \"Oeuvre\" covers \"une base de donnees dans la mesure ou elle est protegee par le droit d'auteur ou le droit des producteurs de bases de donnees\", and the licensor waives its own sui generis right where it holds one: \"l'Offrant renonce a ce droit\". Article 4(e) adds that article 3 and articles 4(a) and 4(b) do not apply to the part of the work that is covered by the database producer right alone. Because the grant of the database right is explicit in the text, dcmitype:Dataset was added rather than proposed.","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 grant supports the modelled permissions. \"l'Offrant autorise l'Acceptant a exercer a titre gratuit, non-exclusif, pour la duree de protection des droits applicables et pour le monde entier, les droits de\" reproduire, distribuer and representer the work (article 3). The record models the grant as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, and the record adds dalicc:ModifiedWorks, which is the subject of the finding below.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The record permits odrl:modify and dalicc:ModifiedWorks while prohibiting odrl:derive. The grant of this element set contains no adaptation right at all: it lists only reproduction, incorporation into collections and the distribution and public performance of the work, and the database extraction right. dalicc:ModifiedWorks is defined in the vocabulary as distributing a modified version of the work and making it available to the public, which this licence does not allow, and the duties hanging on odrl:modify hang on an act the licence does not grant. The same modelling sits in the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 and in all ninety seven NoDerivatives records of the library, and the reviewer of the 4.0 family raised it there, so the change belongs in one sweep over the whole element set. Not applied here.","action":"proposed","change":"remove:\n    odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n            odrl:action dalicc:ModifiedWorks ]\nadd:\n    odrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n            odrl:action dalicc:ModifiedWorks ] ;"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The record permits dalicc:chargeDistributionFee while prohibiting cc:CommercialUse. The NonCommercial restriction of this port forbids exercising the granted rights in a way primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, and the vocabulary defines dalicc:chargeDistributionFee narrowly, as a fee covering the act of providing the work to a third party, so a pure cost recovery fee is arguable but the statement sits uneasily next to the prohibition. The same statement is in the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 and in all one hundred and forty five NonCommercial records of the library, so removing it is one library wide decision, not a defect of this port.","action":"proposed","change":"remove:\n    odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n            odrl:action dalicc:chargeDistributionFee ]"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. \"L'Acceptant ne peut consentir de sous-licence sur l'Oeuvre.\" (article 4(a)). The vocabulary already has dalicc:sublicense, but it is used by no record in the library 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 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.","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 distributed or publicly performed only under the terms of this licence and the licensee may not offer or impose terms that restrict it. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which in a 3.0 port rests on an express sentence of the attribution clause: the licensee may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the original author, the licensor or the attribution parties without their separate prior written permission. That is firmer support than the 2.0 ports have, where the same prohibition rested on the reservation of unnamed rights and on the trademark paragraph of the Creative Commons notice.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"cc:CommercialUse is prohibited, which the NonCommercial restriction of this port supports: the licensee may not exercise the granted rights in a way primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, and the exchange of the work for other copyrighted works by digital file sharing is not treated as such a use as long as no monetary compensation changes hands.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"odrl:derive is prohibited, which the grant supports by omission: this element set grants no right to create or reproduce adaptations, and the share-alike and adaptation paragraphs of the restrictions are absent from its text.","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, or the URI for, the licence with every copy distributed or publicly performed, that all notices referring to the licence and to the warranty disclaimer be kept intact, and that credit be given with the name of the author or pseudonym, the title of the work, the URI the licensor associates with it. In this port the parties are the \"Offrant\" (licensor) and the \"Acceptant\" (licensee), and credit is owed to the \"Titulaire de Droits Originaire\", the original rights holder, which the port defines to include performers, phonogram and videogram producers, broadcasters and database producers. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation each hold their own clause and nothing else: the disclaimer field carries the disclaimer section of this port and the liability field carries the limitation of liability section, both quoted from the French text of the port and not from the English unported version, and both checked word for word against the legal code.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry are not visible in the record at all: the reservation of rights not expressly granted, the downstream offer to every recipient, the automatic termination on breach with the survival of the named sections, and the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:France, which matches the country of the legal-code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/fr/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant made 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 French port carries no choice of law clause: article 8 ends with severability, waiver and entire agreement and 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. The clause is in article 4(a): when the licensee distributes or performs the work \"il ne doit pas imposer de mesure technique de protection susceptible de restreindre la capacite du beneficiaire ulterieur a exercer les droits conferes par la presente Licence\". 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":"Three clauses of every 3.0 port have no vocabulary term. The automatic termination of the licence on breach, with the survival of the definitions, the disclaimer, the limitation of liability and the miscellaneous sections: proposed term dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The direct offer the licensor makes to every recipient of the work or of an adaptation, on the same terms: proposed term dalicc:downstreamOffer. The reservation of all rights not expressly granted: no term either.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Moral rights have no vocabulary term, in either direction: a clause that restricts the licensee, and a clause that leaves the author personal rights untouched by the licence. The port restricts the licensee. The closing paragraph of article 4 says that a licensee who reproduces, distributes or performs the work, an adaptation or a collection \"doit respecter les droits moraux du Titulaire de Droits Originaire dans la mesure ou ce Titulaire en beneficie (comme les auteurs et les artistes-interpretes) et ne peut y renoncer\". Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The royalty collection arrangements are not expressible either, and they are the clause that differs most between the ports of one version. Article 4(f) splits the royalty question in three. Under a non waivable statutory collective management regime the licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect through the competent \"societe de perception et de repartition des droits\", and the port names the cases: broadcasting and public communication of commercial phonograms, some cable and satellite retransmission, private copying, reprography and library lending. Under a waivable regime, and under a voluntary regime, the licensor reserves the right for uses other than the non commercial use allowed by article 4(c) and waives it otherwise.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The sui generis database right is now visible in the record only through dcmitype:Dataset in odrl:target. The two statements the port actually makes about it, that the licensor waives its own database producer right, and that the restrictions of the licence do not apply to the part of the work protected by that right alone, have no vocabulary term. Proposed terms: dalicc:databaseRightsWaiver and dalicc:databaseRightsCarveOut.","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 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0). The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties attached, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties, and, after the correction above, the same odrl:target. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text and the clause texts quoted from it, 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 moral rights clause and the royalty collection arrangements. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from the other records of the BY-NC-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: Article 3 grants, over and above the copyright acts, the right to \"extraire et reutiliser des parties substantielles\" when the work is a database, the definition of Oeuvre covers \"une base de donnees dans la mesure ou elle est protegee par le droit d'auteur ou le droit des producteurs de bases de donnees\", and the licensor waives its own sui generis right where it holds one, \"l'Offrant renonce a ce droit\", and Article 4(e) adds that article 3 and articles 4(a) and 4(b) do not apply to the part of the work that is covered by the database producer right alone. 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-NC-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: \"Toute violation par l'Acceptant des clauses de cette Licence entraînera sa résiliation automatique et la fin des droits qui en découlent.\" 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: France (FR)","port_of":"CC-BY-NC-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 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 has no thirty day cure period for a breach, it settles the royalty collection question per jurisdiction, and it states the moral rights position of the jurisdiction. The French and Polish ports add a sui generis database rights clause, which the other five ports of this review group do not carry. None of that is visible in the model. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}