Jennie Vickers of Zeopard Law has produced an IP legal kit, of which these slides are extracts.

1. zeopard
legal peace of mind kit for thought leaders
Congratulations on making such a sound, valuable investment.
“Your integrity is a precious commodity that inherently costs you nothing, but can cost you
everything if you lose it.” Jennie Vickers in a moment of clarity!
Regardless of where your career is as at as a speaker or a thought leader, you cannot afford any
damage to your reputation because you are perceived as unprofessional, uncommercial or
unethical. Integrity is about structural strength as much as it is about behaviour.
The zeopard peace of mind legal kit will give you just that.
Jennie Vickers as Director of Zeopard looks forward to working with you to personalise and tailor
this kit so that hopefully you shouldn't have to talk to a lawyer again. Wow, now thats what I
call good value!
We’ve chased our tail, so you don’t have to chase yours.
Jennie Vickers
Director
Zeopard Law
2011

2. Acknowledgements
Thought Leaders Global
Matt Church is the founder of Thought Leaders Global, and has been instrumental in my
development of a Thought Leadership approach to legal practice and professional services.
You will see throughout this kit references to Thought Leadership, and if you are unfamiliar with
any of the other new non-legal language I use, chances are it comes from the Thought Leaders
Global community.
Luckily we have included a copy of the Thought Leaders book by Matt Church, Scott Stein and
Michael Henderson with this kit! I recommend in particular Chapter 3, which is all about
unlocking your expertise. This kit dove tails in so you can protect the aces in your expertise pack.
How this kit works
The kit is divided into 3 parts.
Part 1
This part covers the most important legal and quasi legal stuff you need to know when
operating with integrity, but it is underpinned with practical guidance and solutions to legal
conundrums.
You will find five types of documents each with a different context, role, focus and approach:
1. Black & White Papers - these provide context and detail on those topics most relevant
and significant to Thought Leaders and are written with thought leading people in mind;
2. Why the... Guides - these contain the key information you need to understand each
topic, with practical applications and guidance;
3. Cheetah Sheets - a type of checklist to use and reuse every time you produce new slides
or scripts, a bit like a cheat sheet but more jungle;
4. Cheapest Practice Guidelines - these suggest low cost, safe, pragmatic solutions for
those times and situations where the lowest cost is the priority; and
5. Thought Provokers - are a series of questions and thought provokers to shape your
thinking and to challenge your approach on that topic, to ensure you capture all the key
issues and concerns in a document or agreement.
Part 2
Part 2 is all about the paperwork. It includes agreements, documents, etc prepared specifically
for your business in your branding and language, to save you time and stress.
Part 3
This contains a number of useful reference documents if you need more detail or information.
Some are interesting and some are frankly very boring , but you never know what you may be
grateful for in a hurry.

3. part two - the paperwork
2.3. Creating and Commissioning
2.3.1 Acquisition of services agreement - large project
2.3.2 Acquisition of services agreement - small project
2.3.3 Confidentiality and intellectual property deed
2.3.4 Words for employment contracts
2.3.5 Assignment of copyright - book contributions
2.3.6 Commissioning agreement - photographs
2.3.7 Model release form
2.3.8 Deed of assignment - commissioned photographs
2.3.9 Confidentiality agreement
2.3.10 Expectations map

4. Unravelling Creative Commons
a zeopard black & white paper
Jennie Vickers

5. Unravelling Creative Commons
Copy-left or copyright?

6. Unravelling Creative Commons
Copy-left or copyright?
In my ‘why the...’ guide on the ‘expression of your There has however, in the last decades, been a
ideas’, I look at the basic elements and rights backlash in some quarters, from both originators
acquired every time a written text based copyright and users, against the restrictions inherent in one
work is created. party exclusively holding that bundle of rights.
Creative Commons, CC licensing has been hailed
The Copyright Bundle and celebrated as the antidote to oppressive
from
Zeopard Law
copyright laws preventing
Right to adapt Right to make
free sharing and distribution
and translate or money (or
to derive further
Works
not)
=commercial of ideas by authors and
(or not)
Rights to
communicate Copyright= others. As a result, CC has
it or perform Bundle of rights Right to share it
in public you have in your or copy it (whole
“Work” or part) been embraced by many
Right to be
attributed as the Right to
authors including Thought
author publish it
Leaders, whose aim is to
share their ideas with the
World.
The Copyright Bundle shows these rights. Trouble is, there is as much
Now C all rights reserved to
confusion over CC as there is sesh00!

7. Unravelling Creative Commons
over copyright and many people whether authors or had not anticipated was Virgin Australia using one of
users , in their rush to embrace this sharing concept, his photos (uploaded with a CC:BY License) on bus
inadvertently mess with the rights of others in the stop advertising in Adelaide and the now outraged
process. Copyriot is the name of a Swedish blog friend in the photo back in Dallas finding out!
commenting on the confusion and seems a very Whatever the intention of Justin, this all ended up in
appropriate name! the Federal District Court in Dallas. This is not the
only scrap over CC confusion so far and it will not be
If copyright effectively gives you a bundle of rights,
the last , with yet another recent case involving the
CC is all about empowering you to decide which of
New York Times linking to other news sites.
those rights you want to give up/license out and
enabling you to do it with ease. Without a CC license CC was originally a US web-based organisation but
others would need to seek your permission/ now we also have www.creativecommons.org.au
clearance to use your work, if their use went beyond and also http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/
the limited legal exceptions (See the Black and White which both have information relevant to our
Paper “All the fun at the fair-Fair dealing in situation and laws.
Copyright”). My focus here is again on text based
If you are keen to embrace the CC concept, whether
work to save this becoming so complex that you
as an author or as a user of CC materials, then you
give up reading!
need to understand what rights you or others are
Sharing with others was clearly the driver for Justin giving up, what that means practically and how to
Ho-Wee Wong of Dallas, Texas who, back in 2007 go about doing it. The alternative may be needing to
already had over 11,000 photos on Flickr. What he

8. Unravelling Creative Commons
go to Justin Ho-Wee Wong for advice on how to dig is the CC reminder to always attribute. This concept
your way out of a CC hole! is found in the various CC license names as “BY”. The
only exception to this ‘always attribute’ concept is
Creative Commons’ own jargon and symbols
seen with the new Zero CC0 license (explained at the
CC uses jargon, symbols and language that is not end).
particularly intuitive to non-Americans and which do
2. Non-commercial “NC”
not naturally relate to our copyright concepts. But....
to make CC useful, you will need to wrap your head There has been so much confusion over the
around this language to save constantly having to meaning of non-commercial that the CC
look it up. Much of the jargon is unfortunately organisation ran a research study in 2009 to see
framed as a negative, rather than the more useful what the online population meant by this term. The
and understandable positive. There are 5 key terms outcome of the study was that both creators and
you need to become familiar with. users generally consider uses that earn users money
or involve online advertising to be commercial,
1. Attribution “BY”
while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for
CC recognises and respects the paramount charitable purposes are less commercial but not
right of every author of a work to be honoured as decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-
the author i.e to be given a fair attribution. Yet, this is profit companies are typically considered more
most often the element that gets missed or commercial. These distinctions are however not
forgotten as CC licensed material gets disseminated definitive and the key point is be clear if you are
and widely shared across the net. This little symbol allowing commercial use of your work or whether

9. Unravelling Creative Commons
you are wanting to add only to the body of which a derivative work is just one element. Look
knowledge and not someone else’s bottom line. The out for the abbreviation “ND”.
abbreviation used is “NC”.
4. Share Alike “SA”
3. No Derivatives “ND”
The Share Alike concept allows creation of
A derivative work is an adaptation, a new derivative works but, if you create a
creation that includes major, copyright- derivative work by altering, transforming, or
protected elements of an original, previously created building upon the original work, you may distribute
work. Under US law, only a copyright owner can the resulting derivative work only under the same or
approve a derivative work but they cannot stop the similar license to the original work. What this means,
creation of a new work that does not cross the fair is that if you are allowed by the CC license to create a
dealing line. NZ and OZ laws do not specifically derivative work, you are not then allowed to slap full
recognise this concept but the principle still applies. copyright protection on it or to say no derivatives.
The concept of No Derivative effectively means that You have to give the next users the same
you permit others to copy, distribute, display and opportunity you were given! This one is “SA”.
perform only verbatim copies of your work, not
adaptations or derivative works based upon it. So
they cannot change your work in any way. This does 5. Zero “CC0”
not of course prevent the normal permitted fair-
This is the CC equivalent to open source/
dealing found in our Acts. Just to add to the
public domain and announces that the
confusion, the licenses talk about Adaptations of

10. Unravelling Creative Commons
author waives all of their rights to the work If you are using CC licensed material this guide,
worldwide under copyright law and all related or coupled with the CC definitions above, should give
neighbouring legal rights they had in the work, to you the steer you need to avoid doing the wrong
the extent allowable by law. Works under CC0 do thing. The copyright bundle shows we effectively
not even require attribution. It is worth have 6 groups of rights. I have used the language
remembering that this does not mean a waiver of from the bundle showing the rights you have and
moral rights or confidentiality or no publicity rights. want to give up, to keep this selection process easy.
So, if you take a photo of a friend and throw it up on
First you need to make a few decisions to guide your
Flickr designating it as CC0, do remember to ask
license choice:
them first.
• Is it ok, or not, for people to do things with your
The Range of Available Licenses
work and make money with it? If not, you are
If after all that slightly legal mumbo, you are still going to need a license with NC in the name;
keen to give CC licensing of your material a go, you
• Is it ok for people to adapt your work to create
are going to need to choose which license you want
their own derivative type work? If not you are
to use and then work out how best to communicate
going to need ND in the license name;
it to the World. There is also a useful diagnostic at
http://creativecommons.org/choose

11. Unravelling Creative Commons
• Is it ok for people to adapt your work and then given away and an example of where the license has
make their adaptation fully copyright protected been used.
and/or use a CC license more restricted than the
one you used? If not then you are going to need
SA in the name; and 1. Attribution: BY
• Do you care about being attributed and named as This license lets others copy, publish, communicate,
the author of the original work ? If not, then either adapt, perform and distribute your work, even
chose the license that works best and don't worry commercially, as long as they credit you for the
if people forget to attribute you, or maybe a Zero original creation.
license is the way for you.
If you can’t see the combination you want to reflect BY License
the rights you are wanting to give up and license, for
Right to adapt Right to make
example you conclude that you want a BY:NC:ND:SA
and translate or money (or not)
to derive further =commercial (or
Works not)
then how about sticking to the original traditional
copyright all rights reserved concept, but go onto Rights to Copyright=
communicate it Bundle of rights Right to share it or
or perform in you have in your copy it (whole or
public part)
“Work”
say “I am cool if XYZ is done with my work”.
Right to be
attributed as the
author
Australia and New Zealand now have 6 new 3.0
Right to publish
it
licenses. These are described below, with an outline
of what is ok and not, the elements of the bundle

12. Unravelling Creative Commons
This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, Aduki Press, which was the first book published in
in terms of what others can do with your works. Australia under this form of CC license.
An example where this license has been used Another example where an attempt to use this
properly and well is the White House website license has been made, is the Bookrapper
www.whitehouse.gov where everything published publications. www.bookrapper.com Each past
can be used, copied, derivatives made etc provided Bookrapper issue says: “Share this document as it is,
there is attribution of the source of the original no changes, no re- selling. Email it, print it, give it
material. away...” This is endeavouring to say: Attribution, Non
Commercial but is missing the correct wording,
As you can see with this version of the wheel you
give up everything except that right of Attribution.
BY NC License
2. Attribution Non Commercial:
BY-NC Right to adapt
and translate or
to derive further
Works Right to make
money (or not)
This license lets others copy, publish, communicate, =commercial (or
not)
adapt, perform and distribute your work, as long as
Rights to Copyright=
communicate it Bundle of rights Right to share it or
or perform in copy it (whole or
you have in your
public part)
they credit you for the original creation but they “Work”
must only use it for non-commercial purposes. Right to be
attributed as the
author
Right to publish
it
An example close to home is the book “Stick this in
your memory hole” by Tristan Clark and published by

13. Unravelling Creative Commons
format and style to make a CC license actually apply. presumably wanting to catch up with NZ, recently
Interestingly there is also a C symbol on each page announced that the Australian Parliament website,
as well. Although not what was intended, this when relaunched , would be covered by a BY-NC-ND
combination is ok because copyright still exists license. This is a step forward but still seems
alongside every license but Geoff has effectively restrictive. The recent budget document was
given license clearance for certain activities. Future however, released under a BY License.
editions of Bookrappers will include a different
image.
BY-NC-ND
3. Attribution Non Commercial
No Derivatives: BY-NC-ND
This license is often called the “free advertising” Right to adapt
and translate or
Right to make
money (or not)
to derive =commercial (or
license because it allows others to download your further Works not)
works and share them with others as long as they Rights to
communicate it
Copyright=
Bundle of rights Right to share it or
or perform in you have in your copy it (whole or
mention you and link back to you, but they can’t public “Work” part)
change them in any way or use them commercially. Right to be
attributed as the
author
So no adapting or translating is allowed but Right to publish
it
communication, performance and publishing is ok.
Since 2001 in NZ there has been no copyright on
Acts, legislation, etc. The Australian Government

14. Unravelling Creative Commons
4. Attribution Non Commercial Julian had said ND and/or NC and/or SA the court
Share Alike: BY-NC-SA case could have been avoided.
This license lets others copy, publish, communicate,
adapt, perform and distribute your work, as long as
they credit you for the original creation but they BY-NC-SA
must only use it for non-commercial purposes.
Right to adapt
and translate or
In this case they also have to license their derivative to derive
further Works Right to make
money (or not)
works on the same terms as the original. =commercial (or
not)
Rights to Copyright=
communicate it
An example where this license has been used Bundle of rights Right to share it or
or perform in copy it (whole or
you have in your
public part)
“Work”
properly is the Massachusetts Institute of
Right to be
Technology’s MIT online database of all educational attributed as the
author
Right to publish
materials from its undergraduate and graduate level it
courses.
Back to poor old beleaguered Julian. He posted his
original photo under a BY only license. The Virgin
designer produced the Virgin ad creating a
derivative (as permitted) and then slapped a full
copyright all rights reserved designation on it. If

15. Unravelling Creative Commons
5. Attribution No Derivatives: BY- 6. Attribution Share Alike: BY-SA
ND
This license allows others to download your works
This license lets others copy, publish, communicate,
and share them with others as long as they mention
adapt, perform, distribute and build upon your work
you and link back to you, but they can’t change
even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit
them in any way but they can use them
you and license their new creations under the
commercially. So no adapting or translating is
identical terms. This license is often compared to
allowed but making money, communication,
open source software licenses. All new works based
performance and publishing is ok.
on yours will carry the same license, so any
An example where this license has been used is on derivatives will also allow commercial use.
some of the Melbourne Age blogs.
BY-SA License
BY-ND License
Right to adapt Right to make
and translate money (or not)
or to derive =commercial (or
Right to make further Works not)
money (or not)
Right to adapt =commercial (or
and translate not)
or to derive
further Works Rights to Copyright=
communicate it Bundle of rights Right to share
or perform in it or copy it
Copyright= you have in your
Rights to public (whole or part)
communicate it Right to share it or “Work”
Bundle of rights
or perform in you have in your copy it (whole or
public part)
“Work”
Right to be
attributed as the
author
Right to be
attributed as the Right to publish
author it
Right to publish
it

16. Unravelling Creative Commons
Wikipedia content is all covered by this license. How such as your moral rights (to the extent they can be
often do you remember to attribute anything off waived), your publicity or privacy rights, rights you
their site? It is still a requirement under CC even if have protecting against unfair competition, and
you are a little embarrassed admitting your source! database rights and rights protecting the extraction,
dissemination and reuse of data. Keep in mind that
you cannot waive rights to a work that you do not
7. The non license CC0 own unless you have permission from the owner.
Using CC0, you can waive all copyrights and related So there you have it
or neighboring rights that you have over your work,
If you want to ensure your work gets out into the
web and you’re prepared to give up some of your
ØZero License
rights then CC may be for you.
Right to adapt
and translate or
Right to make
money (or not)
A final word of caution though from Mark Twain who
to derive further =commercial (or
said: “Only one thing is impossible for God: To find
Works not)
Rights to
communicate it
Copyright=
Bundle of rights Right to share it or
any sense in any copyright law on the planet.”
or perform in you have in your copy it (whole or
public “Work” part)
Right to be Right to publish
attributed as the
author
it Jennie Vickers
All rights reserved C 2010
(I could not resist the irony! this is a unique expression of this idea-why
would I give it away?)

17. thought provoker
using music ?!?
Do you use music in / with your presentations?
Do you have / get an Do you use
APRA/AMCO performance production music?
license?
Do you rely on the venue / Have you
promoter / event organiser to ever asked?
get the performance license?
Do you use Creative Commons music?
If you have a license do you also have
Master Use rights from the recording
Are you making money selling Did you have
product which includes music permission to use
not licensed? the music?
From the composer? the artist? the record
company who made the recording?