Stack Exchange should stop using the Creative Commons logo [duplicate]

Question

If I understand correctly, SE reproduces its user-produced content using a CC-BY-SA license with additional restrictions: namely, from point 3 of the TOS,

In the event that You post or otherwise use Subscriber Content outside of the Network or Services, with the exception of content entirely created by You, You agree that You will follow the attribution rules of the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license as follows:

a. You will ensure that any such use of Subscriber Content visually displays or otherwise indicates the source of the Subscriber Content as coming from the Stack Exchange Network. This requirement is satisfied with a discreet text blurb, or some other unobtrusive but clear visual indication.

b. You will ensure that any such Internet use of Subscriber Content includes a hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site on the Network (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345)

c. You will ensure that any such use of Subscriber Content visually display or otherwise clearly indicate the author names for every question and answer so used.

d. You will ensure that any such Internet use of Subscriber Content Hyperlink each author name directly back to his or her user profile page on the source site on the Network (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username), directly to the Stack Exchange domain, in standard HTML (i.e. not through a Tinyurl or other such indirect hyperlink, form of obfuscation or redirection), without any “nofollow” command or any other such means of avoiding detection by search engines, and visible even with JavaScript disabled.

Although the wording "You will follow the attribution rules [...] as follows" is a bit misleading, these are indeed additional restrictions; for instance, CC-BY-SA says nothing about nofollow, and asks for hyperlinks only when reasonably practical (at least in the newer versions; the older ones did not specify anything. The TOS never specify a CC-BY-SA version number, and it contains links to both the 2.5 and 3.0 version). [EDIT: apparently now they have updated everything to 4.0].

Adding additional requirements is apparently frowned upon by the CC folks, and they require that you stop using their name and logo in that case:

Can I change the license terms or conditions?

Yes—but if you change the terms and conditions of any Creative Commons license, you must no longer call, label, or describe the license as a “Creative Commons” or “CC” license, nor can you use the Creative Commons logos, buttons, or other trademarks in connection with the modified license or your materials.

My understanding is that Stack Exchange sites should stop using the CC name and logo outright. Is this correct?

Answer 1

From the legal, less human-readable text (emphasis mine):

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;

IANAL, but that sounds like SE is allowed to tell you how the link should look.

Answer 2

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, blah blah blah, grain of salt, etc.

Network Content and Subscriber Content are 'Collections' under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license:

"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

Basically, each post it itself is a Work, but the nature of Stack Exchange is to combine Questions with Answers creating a new entity that is a Collection and licensed by Stack Exchange. This is why Stack Exchange is able to pursue sites that do not follow their attribution rules and not require individual posters whose Work(s) have been plagiarized to issue DMCA takedown notices. This is good.

There is a very different requirement for attribution in regards to a license, however. Section 4c covers the rules for attributions (emphasis mine, changed formatting to improve readability):

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:

(i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties;

(ii) the title of the Work if supplied;

(iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and

(iv) , consistent with Ssection 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author").

The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.

Now the $64k question:

Does making a link nofollow violate CC-BY-SA?

Do webcrawlers count as 'You' under the license?

If so, is a nofollow link preventing proper attribution if the webcrawler intentionally doesn't follow by design?

Is a nofollow link still proper attribution because that programming was a voluntary choice based on internet conventions?

Chances are there isn't precedent to cover this sort of thing. I am not a lawyer, but I'd assume that SE actually consulted with one to draw up these terms, and the lawyer figured that while there was no precedent, it's probably okay. You could send an e-mail to CC if you are super concerned, or you can ignore the SE license and cite content from SE in a 'reasonable manner' according to CC-BY-SA, and see if SE sues you or bans you for it. Chances are nothing will happen, as any damages that stemmed from you posting content without their attribution will be difficult or impossible to prove, and likely not amount to enough money to justify hiring a lawyer to file a proper lawsuit. CC may do something if you e-mail them, so that's probably your best shot if you really think this is a concern.