Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[David Woolley]

On 21/10/16 13:47, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:

Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this work, 
but those other people may not"


That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy / 
terms of use.


Licenses are terms of use!

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Stephen Paul Weber]

> Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this 
> work, but those other people may not" 

That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy / 
terms of use.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Joel Ray Holveck]

I'm not going to address whether or not this list is appropriate to discuss CC 
licenses, but I will offer a brief reply.  The short version is: these are not 
the licenses you're looking for.

Open source licenses always let me download a program to give to my neighbor.  
Similarly, Creative Commons licenses always let me download a cultural work 
(such as a photograph) and give it to my neighbor.

Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this 
work, but those other people may not" is not an open source license.  
Similarly, the Creative Commons licenses always let me share a photograph with 
my neighbor, not just an organization member.

While I'm happy that you want to create a community for sharing culture, these 
licenses are about allowing everybody, not just your members, to share works 
freely.

I certainly hope you find a way to encourage people to create and share free 
cultural works for the benefit of everybody.  But for the portions of the site 
which you don't want people to share, you'll need another license.

Also note that (for example) CC-BY-SA works cannot be used as part of the 
"restricted" portions; the authors of CC-BY-SA have decided to let you remix 
their works only if you agree that everyone may share the final product.  (I'm 
summarizing; you can read the CC licenses for details.)

Joel


> On Oct 19, 2016, at 23:46, Richard Grevers  wrote:
> 
> Greetings from New Zealand,
> 
> I've struggled somewhat to find a forum in which to discuss matters relating 
> to Creative Commons, so I hope this isn't Off-topic here. (If it is, feel 
> free to redirect me!)
> 
> We are redeveloping a website (for a national permaculture organisation) with 
> user-contributed content and a CC-BY-SA license. naturally there are 
> restrictions on who can create content.
> 
> 1) There is some content created by us which is members-only for various 
> reasons - privacy laws/confidentiality, or simply withheld as an incentive to 
> actually join the organisation.
> 
> 2) There is also some interest from users in being able to limit the 
> visibility of content they contribute - just as, on other social media, you 
> can limit content visibility to friends, followers etc. For example, a member 
> might be happy to share a photo of a project in which their children feature 
> with other members, but not happy about it being available to the world on an 
> open license.
> 
> 
> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different 
> license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the 
> general license?
> 
> Regards
> Richard Grevers
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Actually, you can limit the reuse of the pictures.  For my kid pics I mark them 
CC-BY-NC-ND.  If there are other kids in the pics I give their parents 
CC-BY-SA-NC so they can crop my kids out and use it a family photobook, 
christmas card, etc. which is precluded by the ND option if they want to give 
the photobook or card to grandma.  Under ND they can repost the original photo 
to Flickr but not remix, transform or build upon it.

If members (or the site) watermarks the photos, then CC-BY-NC-ND option may be 
good enough for your needs.   You could batch watermark photos uploaded to your 
site and serve the watermarked version to non-members with a CC-BY-NC-ND 
license (or not at all) and the original version to members with a less 
restrictive CC license.

You cannot AFAIK attach any additional restrictions as CC notes in the human 
readable license text:

  *   No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or 
technological measures<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/#> 
that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

So dual licensing based on membership status may work for you as a solution.  
The caveat is if a member reposts those photos on Flickr then anyone that gets 
it from there has that less restrictive CC license.

Depending on the goals of the organization CC-BY-SA-NC may or may not be a 
better default choice over plain CC-BY-SA.  As a parent I don't want my kids to 
end up in an ad campaign without my express permission.  I also don't want to 
get in trouble with other parents if their kids are in my photo.  If a 
non-profit or company wants to use the photo they can ask for permission.

IANAL, etc.

Regards,

Nigel

From: License-discuss 
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>>
 on behalf of Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl<mailto:m...@kl.nl>>
Reply-To: License Discuss 
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:22 AM
To: License Discuss 
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here.

You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to 
understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed 
using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to 
download those images and post them on Flickr or another platform it would be 
impossible to use copyright arguments to stop them.

A Creative Commons license gives permission for everyone in the world to use 
the work under the conditions of the license. The bare minimum of these 
conditions is that you give attribution, but they all allow for non-commercial 
distribution (e.g. placing them on Flickr).

if you are looking for a more local forum to discuss this I recommend 
contacting CC NZ: http://creativecommons.org.nz/

Regards,

Maarten Zeinstra

--
Kennisland | www.kl.nl<http://www.kl.nl> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | 
@mzeinstra

On 20 Oct 2016, at 14:09, Stephen Paul Weber 
<singpol...@singpolyma.net<mailto:singpol...@singpolyma.net>> wrote:

Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different 
license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the 
general license?

One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should 
be no conflict.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org>
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Maarten Zeinstra]

Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here.

You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to 
understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed 
using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to 
download those images and post them on Flickr or another platform it would be 
impossible to use copyright arguments to stop them.

A Creative Commons license gives permission for everyone in the world to use 
the work under the conditions of the license. The bare minimum of these 
conditions is that you give attribution, but they all allow for non-commercial 
distribution (e.g. placing them on Flickr).

if you are looking for a more local forum to discuss this I recommend 
contacting CC NZ: http://creativecommons.org.nz/ 


Regards,

Maarten Zeinstra

--
Kennisland | www.kl.nl  | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | 
@mzeinstra

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 14:09, Stephen Paul Weber  
> wrote:
> 
>> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different 
>> license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the 
>> general license?
> 
> One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there 
> should be no conflict.‎
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Stephen Paul Weber]

> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different 
> license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the 
> general license?

One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should 
be no conflict.‎
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Richard Grevers]

Greetings from New Zealand,

I've struggled somewhat to find a forum in which to discuss matters
relating to Creative Commons, so I hope this isn't Off-topic here. (If it
is, feel free to redirect me!)

We are redeveloping a website (for a national permaculture organisation)
with user-contributed content and a CC-BY-SA license. naturally there are
restrictions on who can create content.

1) There is some content created by us which is members-only for various
reasons - privacy laws/confidentiality, or simply withheld as an incentive
to actually join the organisation.

2) There is also some interest from users in being able to limit the
visibility of content they contribute - just as, on other social media, you
can limit content visibility to friends, followers etc. For example, a
member might be happy to share a photo of a project in which their children
feature with other members, but not happy about it being available to the
world on an open license.


Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different
license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the
general license?

Regards
Richard Grevers
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss