{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttributionSharealike30Armenia","title":"Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Armenia","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/am/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY-SA element set of the Creative Commons 3.0 port for Armenia and the model follows the grant and the restrictions section of that port. The legal text was read in Armenian. Corrections applied: dct:source. 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 states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/am/, 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-sa/3.0/am/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal-code URL implies CC-BY-SA-3.0-AM, which the SPDX licence list does not define, so no spdx:licenseId was invented. Of the forty two records of this review group only the Attribution 3.0 Netherlands record can take one.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-SA-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. The definition of Work in section 1 counts databases among the related-rights subject matter that the licence treats as a Work, and section 4(e) carves the restrictions out of the parts of a work that qualify only under the sui generis database right. The section 3 waiver of database producer rights appears in three of the six Armenian texts (Attribution, ShareAlike and NoDerivatives) and not in the three NonCommercial ones. The four European Union ports of this review group, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland and Croatia, were corrected because their texts license database rights in terms; this one was not, and aligning it with the parent is part of the single library wide decision on the asset types of the Creative Commons family.","action":"proposed","change":"odrl:target [ a odrl:AssetCollection ;\n        dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork,\n            dcmitype:Dataset ] ;"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Every modelled permission is supported by the grant. Section 3 grants a licence with no territorial limit, free of charge, non-exclusive and perpetual (for the term of the licensor economic rights), covering reproduction, inclusion in Collections, the creation and reproduction of Adaptations, and distribution and communication to the public of the Work and of Adaptations. The record models that as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:derive, odrl:modify, cc:DerivativeWorks and dalicc:ModifiedWorks. The rights may be exercised in all media and formats now known or later devised. cc:CommercialUse is permitted, which this element set does not restrict.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so: section 4(a) states that the Work may not be sublicensed by the licensee. 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 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. Not applied for that reason.","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 licensee may offer the work only under the terms of this licence and may not offer or impose terms that alter or restrict it or the recipient ability to exercise the rights granted. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which rests on the reservation of all rights not expressly granted and on the endorsement bar in the attribution clause rather than on a trademark clause of the licence body.","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 communicated to the public, that all notices referring to the licence and to the disclaimer be kept intact, and that credit be given. The attribution clause owes credit to the author or to the holder of the related right, and names the Attribution Parties designated by the licensor. The Armenian text carries the author and the related-rights holder side by side throughout, which the single cc:Attribution duty cannot express. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use. The cc:ShareAlike duty is carried at the level of the odrl:Set, as in the parent CC-BY-SA-4.0.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The share-alike clause of the 3.0 ports is wider than a flat prohibition of relicensing: an adaptation may be distributed under this licence, under a later version of it with the same licence elements, or under the Creative Commons Unported licence or another jurisdiction port of this or a later version with the same licence elements. The record expresses it as a cc:ShareAlike duty plus a dalicc:ChangeLicense prohibition, which cannot say that a later version or another port is an acceptable outgoing licence. The 4.0 International parent has the same limitation, and the consistency check would report a conflict if dalicc:ChangeLicense were permitted next to cc:ShareAlike, so the present modelling is the only one the checker allows.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted from the Armenian text of this port and not from the English unported version, and each field holds its own clause rather than a copy of the other. Section 5 is headed representations and warranties and contains no disclaimer at all: the licensor warrants that entering into and performing the licence is within its powers and does not conflict with the law, and that it holds full ownership of the licensed Work with no legal obstacle to the licensing. Section 6, limitations of liability, likewise affirms liability: apart from statutory requirements and breaches of the section 5 warranties, the licensor is also liable for damage caused intentionally through negligent act or omission. The record carries section 5 verbatim in dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and section 6 verbatim in dalicc:LiabilityLimitation, so each field holds its own clause, but the Armenian port is the one port of this review group where neither clause disclaims anything. Two smaller quoting points: the disclaimer field opens with the section heading itself and carries a tab character taken from the source page, and its closing sentence ends with a Latin full stop where three of the six Armenian legal codes use the Armenian full stop. The Creative Commons pages are themselves inconsistent about that character, so nothing was changed.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry, the reservation of unnamed rights, the downstream offer to every recipient, the severability and entire agreement paragraphs, the termination rule and the royalty collection arrangements, are not visible in the record at all. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Armenia, which matches the country of the legal-code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/am/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant made for the duration of the applicable rights. Section 9, applicable law and settlement of disputes, subjects the licence to the law of the Republic of Armenia unless the parties agree otherwise. Armenia is the only port of this review group with a numbered choice-of-law section. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit on the grant: the grant itself runs worldwide.","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) forbids the licensee to apply to the Work any technological measure that would restrict the ability of a recipient to exercise the rights granted by the 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":"The automatic termination of the licence on breach, and the survival of the definitions, the disclaimer, the limitation of liability and the miscellaneous sections, have no vocabulary term. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The offer of a direct licence from the licensor to every recipient of the work has none either. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Moral rights are not expressible with the present vocabulary. Section 4(f) preserves the personal non-property rights of the author and of the performer to the extent that the law recognises them and does not allow them to be alienated. It restricts the licensee; it is not a non-assertion by the licensor. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction for a clause that binds the licensee and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion for one in which the licensor undertakes not to assert.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The royalty collection arrangements are not expressible either. Section 4 carries only the voluntary licence scheme paragraph. In the NonCommercial sets the licensor reserves the right to collect author and related-rights royalties, personally or through a collective management organisation, for any use other than the non-commercial use permitted by section 4(c); in the Attribution, ShareAlike and NoDerivatives sets the same right is waived. Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a companion for the waived case. The clause differs between the element sets of one and the same port, which is exactly what the model cannot show.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The sui generis database right is handled by the text in a way the model cannot carry: the licensor waives its own database right and the restrictions of the licence do not apply to the parts of the work that qualify only under that right. dcmitype:Dataset in odrl:target says that a dataset may be licensed, not that the database right is waived and not that the attribution and share-alike conditions fall away for the database layer. Proposed terms: dalicc:databaseRightWaiver and a marker for the carve-out.","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-ShareAlike 4.0 International. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent CC-BY-SA-4.0, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text, 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 odrl:target still differs from the parent, which is the open proposal recorded above. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from the other records of the BY-SA element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:terminatesOnBreach","description":"The termination clause of this port reads: \"Սույն Լիցենզիան և սույնով տրամադրված իրավունքներն ինքնաբերաբար դադարեցվում են, եթե Լիցենզառուն խախտել է սույն Լիցենզիայի պայմանները։\" 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: Armenia (AM)","port_of":"CC-BY-SA-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 has no thirty day cure period for a breach, its share-alike clause accepts a later version or another port with the same licence elements, and it settles the moral rights and royalty collection questions per jurisdiction. None of that is visible in the model. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}