{"dependency_graph":"https://dalicc.net/dependencygraph/dg_us","default_rules":[{"iri":"https://dalicc.net/dependencygraph/rules/endorsement-worldwide","action":"https://dalicc.net/ns#promote","action_label":"Promote","action_curie":"dalicc:promote","action_url":"/ns#promote","outcome":"https://dalicc.net/ns#NotGrantedByDefault","outcome_label":"Not granted by default","outcome_curie":"dalicc:NotGrantedByDefault","jurisdiction":"https://dalicc.net/ns#worldwide","jurisdiction_label":"Worldwide","basis":"Trademark and name rights are separate from copyright: Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 article 9 lets the proprietor of an EU trade mark prevent all third parties not having his consent from using the sign in the course of trade, and Directive (EU) 2015/2436 article 10, 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a), section 12 BGB and section 43 ABGB protect marks and names in the same way. The library's evidence is Creative Commons 4.0 section 2(b)(2): Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License. A copyright licence that is silent grants no right to use the licensor's name or marks to suggest endorsement","status":"https://dalicc.net/ns#Adopted","status_label":"Adopted","adopted":true,"date":"2026-09-23","label":"Endorsement is not granted by default","sentence":"The graph applies this reading in all jurisdictions it covers: Promote is not permitted unless the license permits it.","explanation":"A licence that says nothing about endorsement is read as not allowing it: the licence gives the licensee no right to use the licensor's name or marks in a way that states or implies that the licensor endorses the licensee or its product, while stating truthfully that a work is based on or uses the licensed work is a different act that this rule does not decide. A copyright licence grants rights in the work, and the right to use a name or a trademark is a separate right under trademark law and the protection of names, which a silent copyright licence does not pass on. Combining a licence that is silent about endorsement with one that permits it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule.","replaces":"","contributor":"","date_accepted":""},{"iri":"https://dalicc.net/dependencygraph/rules/us-interop","action":"https://dalicc.net/ns#reverseEngineerForInteroperability","action_label":"Reverse engineer for interoperability","action_curie":"dalicc:reverseEngineerForInteroperability","action_url":"/ns#reverseEngineerForInteroperability","outcome":"https://dalicc.net/ns#GrantedByDefault","outcome_label":"Granted by default","outcome_curie":"dalicc:GrantedByDefault","jurisdiction":"https://dalicc.net/ns#US","jurisdiction_label":"United States","basis":"17 U.S.C. 1201(f), and Sega v. Accolade 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000), under which intermediate copying to reach the unprotected elements needed for interoperability is fair use. Bowers v. Baystate Technologies 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003) enforced a contract term against reverse engineering, so the rule is not marked unwaivable","status":"https://dalicc.net/ns#Proposed","status_label":"Proposed","adopted":false,"date":"2026-09-23","label":"Reverse engineering for interoperability is allowed unless the licence forbids it","sentence":"In the United States, Reverse engineer for interoperability is permitted unless the license prohibits it.","explanation":"A licence that says nothing about reverse engineering for interoperability is read as allowing it. United States law exempts reverse engineering for interoperability from the anti-circumvention rules, and the Ninth Circuit has held the intermediate copying it needs to be fair use (Sega v Accolade; Sony v Connectix); other courts have enforced a contract term against reverse engineering (Bowers v Baystate), so no finding is reported when a licence forbids it. Combining a licence that is silent about it with one that prohibits it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule.","replaces":"","contributor":"","date_accepted":""},{"iri":"https://dalicc.net/dependencygraph/rules/us-exhaustion","action":"https://dalicc.net/ns#sellCopy","action_label":"Sell copy","action_curie":"dalicc:sellCopy","action_url":"/ns#sellCopy","outcome":"https://dalicc.net/ns#GrantedByDefault","outcome_label":"Granted by default","outcome_curie":"dalicc:GrantedByDefault","jurisdiction":"https://dalicc.net/ns#US","jurisdiction_label":"United States","basis":"17 U.S.C. 109(a): the owner of a lawfully made copy may sell or otherwise dispose of that copy without the authority of the copyright owner. Vernor v. Autodesk 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010): a person who receives a copy under a licence that reserves title and restricts transfer is a licensee, not an owner. Capitol Records v. ReDigi 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018): the doctrine does not cover the resale of a digital file that requires a new copy to be made","status":"https://dalicc.net/ns#Proposed","status_label":"Proposed","adopted":false,"date":"2026-09-23","label":"A copy that was sold may be sold on","sentence":"In the United States, Sell copy is permitted unless the license prohibits it.","explanation":"A licence that says nothing about reselling a copy is read as allowing the owner of a lawfully made copy to sell that copy on. The first-sale doctrine of section 109(a) of the Copyright Act protects the owner of a copy, not a licensee: where a licence reserves title and restricts transfer, courts may find no sale took place (Vernor v Autodesk), and it does not cover resale of a digital file that requires a new copy to be made (Capitol Records v ReDigi). Combining a licence that is silent about it with one that prohibits it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule.","replaces":"","contributor":"","date_accepted":""}]}