When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. page 
~
This part of the page is in Thread Mode (including LLM generated text).
**Prompt**: How does work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License conflict with the Chatham House Rule?
**Think** (DeepSeek): […], the user is asking about the conflict between Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0) and the Chatham House Rule. Let me start by recalling what each of these entails.
First, CC BY-SA is a license that allows sharing and adapting work as long as the original creator is credited, and any new works based on it are shared under the same license. It's all about openness and requiring derivative works to maintain the same terms. On the other hand, the Chatham House Rule is about confidentiality. When this rule applies, participants can discuss the content of a meeting but can't reveal who said what or which organizations were involved. The goal is to encourage open discussion without fear of Attribution.
Now, where's the conflict? The main issue is attribution. CC BY-SA requires giving credit to the original creator, but Chatham House forbids disclosing identities. If someone creates a work under Chatham House, they can't be attributed, which directly clashes with CC BY-SA's requirement. Also, ShareAlike mandates that derivatives use the same license, but if the derivative includes Chatham House material, attributing would violate the rule. It's a fundamental incompatibility. The user might be dealing with a situation where they want to use content from a Chatham House event in a CC BY-SA project. Maybe they're an academic, a journalist, or someone involved in policy work. They need to share information but are unsure about legal boundaries. Their deeper concern is probably navigating these conflicting requirements without legal repercussions. They might also be trying to balance transparency with confidentiality, which is common in sensitive discussions. Another angle: perhaps they organized an event under Chatham House and now want to license the outputs as CC BY-SA. They need to know that's impossible without breaching confidentiality. Or, they might have encountered a source with conflicting licenses and need guidance on compliance. I should emphasize that combining both isn't feasible. If Chatham House applies, the content can't be CC BY-SA licensed. The user needs alternatives, like using non-attributed content without a license or seeking permission. Highlighting practical examples would help them understand. Also, mentioning that Chatham House is a rule for events, not a content license, clarifies the distinction. They might not realize that Chatham House restricts attribution permanently, not just initially. Stressing that even after the event, identities can't be revealed under the rule. Also, the ShareAlike clause would force derivatives to break confidentiality, making it a no-go. In summary, the core conflict is irreconcilable due to opposing attribution requirements. The user's real need is likely to resolve a specific situation where they have to handle content under both frameworks. Providing clear alternatives and stressing the impossibility of merging both would address their underlying concerns.
The **Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0)** and the **Chatham House Rule** are fundamentally incompatible due to their opposing core principles. Here's a breakdown of the conflict: ### Core Principles in Conflict 1. **Attribution (BY) Requirement (CC BY-SA):** * **Requires:** Anyone who uses or adapts the licensed work **must credit the original creator(s)**. This includes naming the author(s)/source and providing a link to the license. * **Purpose:** Ensures creators get recognition and allows users to trace the origin of the work. 2. **Anonymity Requirement (Chatham House Rule):** * **Requires:** Participants in a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule **cannot disclose the identity or affiliation of speakers or attendees**, nor reveal which organization(s) they represent. * **Purpose:** Encourages open and frank discussion by assuring participants their comments won't be publicly attributed to them.
### The Direct Conflict * **Attribution vs. Anonymity:** This is the primary and irreconcilable conflict. CC BY-SA **demands** attribution to the original creator. The Chatham House Rule **forbids** attribution of any comments made during the meeting to specific individuals or organizations.
* **ShareAlike (SA) Requirement (CC BY-SA):** * **Requires:** Anyone who creates a derivative work based on the CC BY-SA licensed material **must license their new work under the identical CC BY-SA license**. * **Conflict with Chatham House:** If the original work (e.g., a transcript, recording, or detailed summary of a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule) were licensed under CC BY-SA, the ShareAlike clause would force anyone creating a derivative work (e.g., a report quoting the meeting) to also license *their* work under CC BY-SA. This would require them to attribute the original source/creator – which directly violates the Chatham House Rule's anonymity mandate. The ShareAlike clause essentially propagates the attribution requirement downstream, making it impossible to comply with anonymity. ### Practical Implications & Key Points 1. **Cannot License Chatham House Content under CC BY-SA:** Content generated *under* the Chatham House Rule (like specific quotes, viewpoints expressed, or detailed attributions of ideas to individuals) **cannot legally be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0** without violating the Rule. Applying the CC BY-SA license would require revealing identities, which breaks the Rule. 2. **Chatham House Rule Governs Disclosure, Not Content Licensing:** The Rule is about **how information from an event can be disclosed**, not about licensing the *content itself* once disclosed. The *ideas* discussed can be shared freely, but **only without attribution**. 3. **Using Chatham House Content in a CC BY-SA Work:** * You **cannot directly incorporate** verbatim quotes or specifically attributable viewpoints from a Chatham House event into a CC BY-SA licensed work *while maintaining anonymity*, because CC BY-SA requires attribution to the source of the quoted material. * You **could potentially use** the *ideas* or *general themes* discussed, **provided you do not attribute them to any specific participant or organization** and ensure your description doesn't inadvertently reveal identities. However, this content *would not be* licensed under CC BY-SA itself; it would be your own original description of unattributed ideas. You could still license *your overall work* under CC BY-SA, but the specific unattributable Chatham House-derived ideas wouldn't carry the CC license obligation themselves.
4. **Alternatives:** * **Public Domain Tools (CC0):** If the *organizer* wants to release *non-attributable* outputs (like a general summary report written by the organizers themselves, not quoting participants) based on a Chatham House event, they could consider CC0 (Public Domain Dedication). This removes all restrictions, including attribution. However, this *still* doesn't allow attributing participants. * **No License / Custom Terms:** Content disclosed under the Chatham House Rule is typically used under its inherent anonymity constraint, without an additional open content license. Organizations might release summaries under their own copyright terms, explicitly stating the anonymity requirement overrides any attribution expectations. * **Waiver of BY for Specific Content:** In theory, a copyright holder *could* waive the BY requirement for specific Chatham House-derived content within a larger CC BY-SA work, but this creates complexity and isn't a standard practice. The ShareAlike issue remains problematic for derivatives.
## Conclusion The **CC BY-SA 4.0 license and the Chatham House Rule are mutually exclusive** when applied to the same content. The mandatory attribution requirement of CC BY-SA directly and fundamentally violates the core anonymity principle of the Chatham House Rule. The ShareAlike clause further entrenches this conflict by forcing derivatives to also require attribution. **Content generated under the Chatham House Rule cannot be legally licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.** Attempting to combine them would violate one or the other. –– DeepSeek