Perhaps it is just a photo of two of your friends taken during a trip to the beach. Notwithstanding their own views on gay rights, would they be comfortable with their new role as symbols. A similar thing happened to a Texan teen, whose images, published by a friend on Flickr with a CC BY license, were used in a Virgin Mobile advertising campaign in Australia that presented her in an unflattering light www. Her family attempted to sue various parties, but was unsuccessful the main stumbling block was that there was no clear jurisdiction.
If all of your photos, videos or blog entries are published under Creative Commons licenses, there is nothing to stop a scraper from downloading and re-uploading ALL your work into what essentially becomes a mirror site. If you find out your Creative Commons licensed work is scraped, there is not much you can do about it, especially if your name is included somewhere on the page.
If your work is NOT published under a Creative Commons license, however, you can act to have the copied content removed. The licences may be too specific, not specific enough or may clash Here are some examples:. There are grey areas; Yes, it is; Yes, it is. Content creators need to look carefully at the pitfalls of Creative Commons licenses before deciding whether they are willing to share their work permanently under those terms. Content users need to especially careful when using Creative Commons work.
They should only use work from creators they have full confidence in and should keep a clear record of the licenses e.
I rarely use Creative Commons works in my own work. One exception might be to use attributed CC photos in something like class notes. I used to use it for my music compositions music, but was put off by the permanent nature of the license and by seeing scrapers re-publishing my work.
To make my work available for use, I set up my own terms of use with specific terms governing scraping, remixing and altering and an option for people who monetize videos using my music on YouTube. Return to Writing. One drawback to relying upon a CC license is the assumption that the person issuing the license actually has the […]. Great Article. We have a bunch of creative commons YouTube videos and I worry that one day we might not want people using our videos.
Therefore, if the creator uses this license to upload content, it is possible to make the work […]. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account.
Notify me of new comments via email. So no, CC shouldn't give up on licenses tomorrow, or anything like that - but if their goal is to fix the problems of copyright, then they should definitely be considering what impact they will have in the long-term, and whether they will end up becoming another obsolete legal obstacle. As consumers try to avoid purchasing as much as is reasonably possible, though there are limits work that does not contain a clause that says, "this work is released under a creative commons license on such and such date" and it lists the date that the work is released.
Make sure it releases the work under a reasonable license in a reasonable time ie: seven years maybe? This could apply to books, CD's, and such. Of course there are exceptions, perhaps material for the purpose of education, and for that we need to compel congress to change copyright laws to be more reasonable.
Artists can release their works under such licenses. Copyright I think is OK but it lasts way too long and we can find contractual workarounds for that.
And this is exactly my point, it's about what we can do NOW and what we can do NOW is find workarounds while avoiding works ie: music that do not utilize such workarounds. Okay fine, but my point still stands - you can't brush off those who disagree with you and would rather push for copyright reform over contractual workarounds simply by saying "ROFLOL". BAlbrecht profile , 1 Sep pm. I wholeheartedly agree. What are the alternatives? For those that don't I have written proof that I specified terms of use to prod them with.
And in most cases, I find that by using an "alternative" licensing scheme I introduce them to the concept that there are alternative ways to handle the distribution of IP, thereby beginning their education on this critical issue.
Now, remind me why I should wait for the vitriolic debate in the US congress over this? Especially when it is going to be controlled by the Special Interest lobby? There is nothing wrong with copyright but I think it lasts way way too long and, while our votes don't mean much, we do have control over how we spend our money and special interest groups pay attention to how we spend our money.
If we don't buy material that doesn't explicitly release itself to the public domain ie: via some creative commons license in a reasonable period of time ie: seven years or whatever we deem reasonable then the RIAA and other groups have no choice but to add such licenses to their material. What choice would they have? Your votes are almost worthless but how you spend your money DOES matter.
Nick , 1 Sep pm. I do not understand this argument against Creative Commons. I am not particularly familiar with Creative Commons, but I always hear it described as a system either "on top" of or alongside copyright law. As such, and I would like to know if I misunderstand, Creative Commons isn't about changing copyright law or policy in any meaningful way. What Creative Commons is good for, and again, I'd love to know if I'm wrong, is lowering the transaction costs of using the creative work of others.
These transaction costs, eg. So, while federal law bestows all sorts of rights upon the creation of their work, there are few easy mechanisms for obtaining a license. For better or worse, a compulsory license from ASCAP is a good example of a straightforward process of obtaining rights. The problem is that there is no central licensing body for the bulk of creative material that gets uploaded to the Internet everyday.
This is, where I thought, Creative Commons came into play. Rather than a process mandated by statute, ordinary people could take the initiative and declare to the world "this is my license to others.
Totally at the control of the author. If one wants to find material that can be used with minimal transaction costs, and an author wants to allow others to use their work without those same costs, Creative Commons brings those people together. In essence, Creative Commons brings about an alternative marketplace for clearing rights.
It's not about creating, expanding, or limiting the rights every author is granted under copyright law, rather it's a system of communicating permissions amongst those authors. If one understands Creative Commons on these terms, which I think are correct, then it doesn't make any sense to argue that Creative Commons doesn't do enough in the discussion about copyright or information policy in general: that's not the point of Creative Commons.
Sure, the larger efforts pointed to in the Copycense post are worthy causes, but criticizing Creative Commons on these terms is the equivalent of bashing carpooling policies because they perpetuate reliance on gas powered cars. Curing the underlying problem isn't the point here, it's picking the low hanging fruit in a way that improve things immediately while other efforts are taken to more fundamentally change the system.
All that said, Copycense's critiques sound legitimate. Too bad Creative Commons isn't and never was the revolution Copycense was looking for. Matt profile , 1 Sep pm. I mostly agree - that is not what CC is for. But I do not think Copycense is complaining that CC is not its messiah. I think it is complaining that CC doing what CC was designed to do frustrates efforts to change copyright in ways it needs to be changed. Congress made a really, embarrassingly bad copyright law.
Rather than confront that and fix it, Congress has permitted the court in the case of software copyrights, and private individuals CC and GNU and others to try to mitigate the damage.
If society ever felt the full brunt of Congress's screwup, it would immediately demand that Congress stop dragging its feet. I made this argument myself to James Boyle some years ago.
I have come around to what I understood his view to be - if you are against killing, killing a few to save a lot is not an acceptable solution. The better, and more compassionate, response is harm reduction. CC is about harm reduction. Indian Rosewood Furniture , 17 Dec am. Really a very nice article post in the blog. I rally appreciate to read to it. It have contain a great stuff of information. I really like it.
Yeah right , 1 Sep pm. I can't get my head around the following. Have you seen the announcement that Sony is making available thousands of out-of-print book titles free? Well, read on: 'If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Am I getting this straight? Every Tom, Dick and Harry can take a GNU licensed product, modify it, forbid any further modification and start charging money for it?
All depends on if Sony were the originators of the ebook library software or not. If so, then they can do pretty much whatever the heck they want. In which case they aren't releasing under GNU. Instead they are releasing under their own highly modified version of GNU. Now, if someone else wrote it and originally released under GNU, then was modified by Sony, it gets a bit more muddled.
Sony could have easily taken the GNU App, paid the original author, made some changes, and then slapped those pages on it. The main part of the App has to be released under GNU though, any changes Sony made are not required to be released under the license because they got express permission from the original authors. All perfectly okay under GNU, long as the original author s are okay with it got paid. GNU doesn't mean you're giving up your rights, anymore than CC does.
It just means you are bestowing additional rights to the general population. It would be unfair for someone to use a piece of GNU-GPL software for their entire business and then for the owner to come along and say, "I'm changing this license, you must pay me now" after the business has invested a lot of time and effort into getting their business to work under that software. Once something is released under the GNU-GPL the author has already agreed that all derivatives are released under that same license.
If the author doesn't like it he can use a different license. Either it's GNU and anyone can copy, distribute, and modify it, or it's not and they shouldn't pretend that it is or otherwise they should be punished. Copycense vs Creative Commons is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. David profile , 1 Sep pm. You start out saying things like "I don't use any of their licenses [CC], because I don't necessarily see the point.
Then you list a whole bunch of things Copycense has a problem with. Then you end up praising CC and it's effort to get people to think about copyright, saying "that doesn't mean that Creative Commons is necessarily bad for copyright policy issues. You aren't taking a stand about CC really, and mostly are damning with faint praise. Do you like the CC or not? No, you "don't use any of their licenses". Yes, CC isn't bad for copyright policy issues.
Copycense said all this stuff, only I guess maybe I kind of don't agree with it much. Why did you bother posting this at all? Mike Masnick profile , 1 Sep pm. I posted it because I thought Copycense's argument was interesting and worth discussing.
I find some elements of their post interesting, and I come from a position where I've always been a little lukewarm towards CC. But, the point is that in the end I don't find Copycense's argument convincing. Yes, because I'm not allowed to post something I disagree with, but still find thought provoking? Is that what you're suggesting? Because I thought it was thought provoking and interesting, even if ultimately, I didn't agree with it.
I thought some of you might find it equally thought provoking as well. Of course you're allowed to post any fool thing you want. You often do. In this case, however, you don't seem to really care much one way or the other. The post is basically saying "I don't really care, but I do in fact care enough to piss on what Copycense is saying. And probably has far and away more contributors than CC ever will.
Its really the same sort of work around for copyright law, just taken a step further. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for copyright reform of some sort. Though the same is true of normal copyright. CC-BY gives the academic some more options in certain cases, but certainly not all. Small time predatory journals it may not be worth the effort.
So in that example the academic is leaving themselves a bit of insurance with CC-BY over public domain. How often will they use it? Is it worth 9 million a year? Is it worth the confusion? I am not sure OA and collecting reprinting fees is compatible. So I am not sure how much CC has to do with that. It is more a method than a cause, if that makes sense. If it was in public domain over CC for OA publishing I think the problem raised, finding ways to fund publishing, would still stand.
The issues of complexity of the licenses, costs, etc. Simply putting my work in public domain might work just fine. So thank you for raising the issue of comparing CC-BY to public domain. This is turning out to be a much longer comment than I expected. Also, who benefits from them both but that would probably have to be its own blog post.
So to answer you question. I can see why some people might want to use them but I am not sure there is a blanket they are good or bad, probably case by case bases taking into account benefits and all of the problems you raise. I think you miss-read what I said. Academics get nothing from royalties but by publishing they can become professors and make lots of money. That is they make a licenses available in the local legalize.
Though version 4. Having now had a quick look, this is exactly what the CC0 licence does. New rules always create confusion but that is not a strong argument against them. The legal complexities of CC reflect the complexity of copyright. That the CC licenses are being used suggests that they are useful. The question is how? Claiming they are not useful is unlikely to be correct.
Perhaps the usefulness is social not individual, so people are using them to do good. I take no position on this. Kent: I find it interesting that the info companies like Google are all for this sort of thing yet are vehement in defending their code!
Creative Commons builds on Copyright and cannot remove rights already granted by the law. Also the argument that the organization is funded is uninteresting as the licenses are free to use by anyone who wants them. The work of translating CC licenses and ensuring their legality in all the separate jurisdictions is done by volunteers who are not paid by Google. The fact that so many users individuals and organizations have found the licenses useful surely indicates that they serve a valid purpose.
That many find the license texts complicated is also a weak argument. I find reading my pension rules complicated but this does not make them unimportant or make them less useful. That does seem like a silly label! That is an important distinction, although I would agree that they could have chosen a different way to make it. Frankly, being an author, not a publisher, IMHO, you are all holding the wrong end of the stick. The only situation in which I have ever cared in the least tiny bit about what copyright is on something, is when some publisher tells me that I need to get permission for reprinting a figure, or some such thing.
Given the complexities of science, this is all nonsense. Publishing in the top journals and conferences and in each field everyone knows which they are — random metrics aside, which also no working scientist cares at all about is WAY more important than anything else, aside from the science itself.
All of the rest is noise. What about if it were poorly translated so that the meaning you intended to convey was changed? How about ifit were put into an anthology that sold exceptionally well and earned its publisher millions of dollars, none of which was shared with you? Because, B. This happens all the time having nothing to do with the paper per se. And this has already happened, and even then, I only slightly care. Furthermore, C. The value I get from my publications is from people I care to get value from, and they know to credit me, and do, regardless of copyright.
You people have a really broken view of how scientists think. So the only thing that CC does for me is to possibly help me save someone else like me the trouble of having to waste a bunch of time and cope with a bunch of painful forms at the copyright clearance center. Close paraphrase can also be a copyright violation, as it was considered to be in the suit that J.
Salinger brought against an author who published a biography about him.
0コメント