free content
Enable an agent to recognise free content, assess the evidence for its reuse freedoms, and identify permitted actions and applicable obligations for a specific version.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read
Researched by: Codex
Purpose and description
Enable an agent to recognise free content, assess the evidence for its reuse freedoms, and identify permitted actions and applicable obligations for a specific version.
Free content is expressive or informational material whose copyright status or licensing permits anyone to use, study, copy, redistribute, modify, and distribute modified versions, including commercially, subject at most to conditions compatible with those freedoms.
It can be Assess a specified version against an explicit free-content criterion.; Locate the permission evidence and editable materials for covered components.; Prepare attribution, notices and change records for a proposed reuse.; Evaluate whether a proposed adaptation or combination can meet all recorded conditions.; Identify technical barriers and unresolved rights that prevent a confident action decision.; Reassess a new edition or distribution without assuming it inherits every earlier permission..
Distinguishing features
A zero purchase price alone does not establish free-content status; assess reuse permissions separately.
Access to read or download does not establish permission to modify or redistribute.
A restriction against commercial reuse or distributing adaptations conflicts with the provisional freedom criterion used here.
A freedom claim must identify its covered version and components; an openly licensed page does not automatically establish the status of embedded third-party material.
Public-domain status and a permissive licence are different grounds for freedom and require different supporting evidence.
Scope
+ The particular work, expression, version and components to which a freedom claim applies
+ Evidence of permissions supplied by a licence, dedication or public-domain status
+ Conditions attached to copying, modification and redistribution
+ Technical access to content and materials needed for practical modification
+ Changes in freedom status across versions, adaptations and distributions
- General bibliographic description and artistic evaluation of the underlying work
- Physical ownership and condition of individual carriers
- Software-specific freedom and source-code requirements
- Complete models of copyright law and jurisdictional interpretation
- Business models and pricing of content distribution services
Characteristics
- Freedom assessment
- unassessed | supported | partially supported | disputed | unsupported, against a named criterion Separates a publisher's claim from an agent's evidence-based assessment.
- Covered content
- References to the work, expression, version, files and included or excluded components Prevents permissions for one version or component from being applied to another.
- Freedom basis
- licence | dedication | public-domain status | mixed | unresolved Identifies what evidence and interpretation the assessment requires.
- Permission coverage
- For use, study, copying, modification and redistribution: supported | conditional | restricted | unknown; record commercial coverage separately Makes the requested action assessable without collapsing different freedoms into one label.
- Reuse obligations
- Recorded requirements such as attribution, notice preservation, change indication and reciprocal licensing Connects permission to the steps needed when exercising it.
- Modification readiness
- editable materials available | conversion required | essential materials missing | unknown Distinguishes legal permission to modify from practical ability to do so.
- Assessment context
- Named freedom criterion, relevant jurisdictions, assessment date and evidence records Makes the result reviewable and limits unwarranted generalisation.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 6 bundles · 11 layers · 18 findings · 28 questions.
Freedom boundary Establish the intended sense of free content and the exact content being assessed.
Both the meaning of free and the boundary of the covered work can change the classification.
Freedom criterion
Make the standard behind a freedom assessment explicit.
Freedom versus price
Record reuse freedoms independently of access price and promotional labels.
- Which definition of free content governs this assessment, and which freedoms does it require? definition
- Does the evidence establish reuse freedoms, or only permission to access the content without payment? boundary
Covered expression
Anchor the assessment to identifiable expressions, versions and components.
Permission target
Separate the underlying work from translations, editions, files and carriers whose status may differ.
- Which work, language expression and version does the freedom statement identify? boundary
- Which illustrations, recordings, annotations or other components are explicitly included or excluded? boundary
Permission evidence Represent the basis, authority and limits of the claimed freedoms.
A free-content label is insufficient without evidence connecting permissions to the covered material.
Grant and authority
Identify the permission statement and evidence of the granting party's authority.
Traceable grant
Bind the exact permission terms to the content and the party presenting them.
- Where is the licence or dedication recorded, including its version and any stated exceptions? provenance
- What evidence supports the granting party's authority over each covered contribution? provenance
Public domain and residual rights
Assess freedom claims that depend on public-domain status and identify separately relevant rights.
Contextual rights basis
Record the territorial and temporal basis of the assessment without treating copyright freedom as clearance of every possible use.
- If public-domain status is asserted, what evidence supports it in the jurisdictions and at the date relevant to the proposed use? provenance
- Which separately relevant rights or restrictions remain unresolved for the proposed use? boundary
Reuse freedoms and conditions Translate the recorded terms into action-specific permissions and obligations.
An agent needs to determine what it can do and what accompanies that action.
Permitted acts
Assess core freedoms separately, including modification and commercial redistribution.
Action coverage
Record whether evidence supports each requested act rather than inferring permission from availability.
- Which terms support use, study, copying, modification and redistribution, including commercial reuse? definition
- Does the proposed action encounter a restriction on purpose, audience, medium or distribution of adaptations? action
Compliance actions
Identify obligations triggered by the proposed form of reuse.
Required reuse record
Specify the credits, notices, change statements and licensing steps the distribution must carry.
- Which attribution, licence notices and modification disclosures must accompany this reuse? action
- What reciprocal licensing or other conditions apply, and which parts of the resulting material do they cover? boundary
Practical reusability Assess whether the content can actually be obtained, inspected and modified.
Formal permission can coexist with missing materials or technical barriers that obstruct the intended reuse.
Editable materials
Identify useful modification forms and the dependencies needed to work with them.
Modification inputs
Record whether editable text, layered artwork, recording tracks or equivalent materials are available for the relevant medium.
- What form is suitable for modifying this content, and where can that form be obtained? action
- Which essential assets, fonts, project files or other dependencies are missing or have unresolved reuse terms? boundary
Access and copy barriers
Record distribution constraints that affect practical exercise of the stated freedoms.
Usable distribution
Assess the available distribution for copying, extraction and editing barriers.
- Do encryption, copy controls, account requirements or unavailable formats obstruct the intended reuse? measurement
- Is there an authorised distribution or documented process through which the stated freedoms can be exercised? action
Adaptation and continuity Track how freedom assessments apply to combinations, adaptations and later versions.
Reuse creates new boundaries and obligations, while later releases may contain different material or terms.
Combined content
Assess the interaction of component permissions in a proposed output.
Compatible reuse plan
Evaluate whether the planned combination can satisfy all applicable terms and identify unresolved conflicts.
- Does the proposed output reproduce separate works, adapt a work or combine material in a way whose classification remains uncertain? boundary
- Can the proposed distribution satisfy every component's conditions, and what evidence supports that conclusion? action
Versioned assessment
Preserve the connection between a particular release, its evidence and its assessment.
Freedom-status continuity
Identify changes requiring reassessment while retaining the evidence for previously assessed versions.
- What version identifier or content fingerprint binds the retained permission evidence to the assessed material? provenance
- Have new contributions, changed terms or corrections to the rights record introduced questions that require reassessment? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- The unrecorded sense is resolved here as freedom to reuse and modify, rather than merely absence of a price.
- Free content is a rights-based category spanning media, not a distinct medium; permissions may differ between an underlying work, an adaptation, an edition, and components within a file.
- This is recall rather than source-verified research; a researcher should check exact license versions, provenance, and jurisdiction before classifying a particular work.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Public-domain content
- Permissively licensed content
- Share-alike or copyleft content
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Identifiers and schemes
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- SPDX License List - CC-BY-4.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0, CC0-1.0 - These identify licenses or a public-domain dedication instrument, not individual works or proof that a licensor controls all relevant rights.
- Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Standards and regulation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Definition of Free Cultural Works, maintained by the Freedom Defined project, describes freedoms and permissible restrictions for free cultural works.
- Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, issued by Creative Commons, provide standard licensing terms for free content.
- CC0 Public Domain Dedication, issued by Creative Commons, provides a rights-waiver instrument with fallback licensing provisions.
- Open Definition, maintained by the Open Knowledge Foundation, sets criteria for open knowledge, including access, reuse, modification, and redistribution.
- Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Collaborative encyclopedias and other shared reference works
- Educational materials that teachers and learners can adapt and redistribute
- Images, audio, and video available for reuse in new works
- Translation and adaptation of documentation
- Public-domain cultural collections distributed by libraries, archives, and museums
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Treating content available without payment as content with permission to adapt and redistribute
- Applying a free license to material without controlling the necessary rights
- Omitting attribution, license notices, or required indications of modifications
- Combining material under incompatible licensing conditions
- Assuming a copyright license also clears privacy, publicity, trademark, or other third-party rights
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Public-domain status can differ between jurisdictions because copyright terms and eligibility rules differ.
- The ability to waive rights, particularly moral rights, differs between legal systems.
- Government-produced works are not uniformly in the public domain across countries.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Gratis content - Gratis content costs nothing to access; free content grants reuse and modification freedoms and may be sold.
- Open content - The terms often overlap, but some uses of open content include noncommercial or no-derivatives restrictions that fail the free-content definition used here.
- Public-domain work - A public-domain work lacks applicable copyright restrictions in a given jurisdiction; free content also includes copyrighted works released under qualifying licenses.
- Open-access publication - Open access concerns access to research literature and associated reuse terms; free content requires modification and redistribution freedoms that access alone does not establish.
- Free software - Free software applies analogous freedoms to computer programs; free content here concerns expressive and informational works.
- Digital file - A file is a particular encoding or copy; free-content status concerns permissions over the embodied material, including any separately protected components.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of free content this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Does the registry intend free content to mean freedom to reuse, zero-price content, or another sense?
- Which published freedom definition should govern classification, particularly for technical restrictions and access to editable materials?
- Which neighbouring registry models should own the underlying work, licences and rights assertions to avoid duplicating them here?
- How should partially free collections be classified when individual components have different or unresolved terms?
- What evidence threshold and jurisdictional coverage should an agent require before treating a freedom assessment as sufficient for a proposed action?