: is
creative commons broken? that:
Who gave CC a mandate to create these licenses anyway? What's the
difference in having
a CC license and just stating your intent on your site (e.g. Please
feel free to use my work
in any way you see fit but if you make any money from it I require
10
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:12:32 +0100, wtrainbow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My God if you could pull your head out of your ass for a minute and read
the laws perhaps
you could understand why the US Laws and Berne are abominable.
My God if you could only quit personal insults for a minute it
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:12:32 +0100, wtrainbow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My God if you could pull your head out of your ass for a minute
and read
the laws perhaps
you could understand why the US Laws and
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as a late-comer to this thread, my thoughts have been conveyed already.
so i'll just say... it's not broke and in time, that will become
even more
obvious.
not enough people look ahead and are stuck in the now.
around the 7/3/06 wtrainbow mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: is
creative commons broken? that:
Who gave CC a mandate to create these licenses anyway? What's the
difference in having
a CC license and just stating your intent on your site (e.g. Please
feel free to use my work
in any way you
Man, that guy is pernickity...
Kitka
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this article may be of interest to many videobloggers:
http://www.sourcelabs.com/blogs/ajb/2006/02/creative_commons_is_broken.html
(here too:
The what is commercial use notion is pretty interesting. I'm sure
there could be many interpretations.
If you look at some stock photo sites, they allow the photos to be
used in commercial settings, but they do not allow the direct
reselling or redistribution of the images. So, for instance you
This is my comment response to Alex's blog post:
I can see the points you make and they appear salient. However I make
constant use of (cc) licensing in my videoblogs and have found it
useful for both getting material, mainly photos to use as poster
images, and licensing my vlogs. I search for
I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists Public Domain
as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I
thought that Public Domain was a part of standard copyright law. Am
I wrong about this?
But I do see his point on the definitions of commercial. I would
There is a CC license that marks the work as Public Domain.
But I guess you could do that without CC.
-josh
On 3/7/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists Public Domain
as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I
i thought Public Domain was when something was out of copyright, whereas if you use CC licensing, the object is still protected by copyright laws, but you license others to use it. ?On 7 Mar 2006, at 17:35, Joshua Kinberg wrote: There is a CC license that marks the work as Public Domain. But I
Bill Streeter wrote:
I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists Public Domain
as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I
thought that Public Domain was a part of standard copyright law. Am
I wrong about this?
Bill, you are correct, the same point was brought
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:43:24 +0100, trine berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i thought Public Domain was when something was out of copyright,
whereas if you use CC licensing, the object is still protected by
copyright laws, but you license others to use it. ?
Yes, but you can also throw away
Bill Streeter wrote:
I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists Public Domain
as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I
thought that Public Domain was a part of standard copyright law. Am
I wrong about this?
But I do see his point on the definitions of
that's very nicely done Pete
do you mind if we copy the general language for our own usage?
Pete Prodoehl wrote
Until then, if you release your work under a CC license, you might as
well outline what you think it means, as I've attempted to do here:
http://tinkernet.org/usage/
It's the
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:29:00 +0100, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists Public Domain
as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I
thought that Public Domain was a part of standard copyright law. Am
I wrong about
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:49:42 +0100, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until then, if you release your work under a CC license, you might as
well outline what you think it means, as I've attempted to do here:
http://tinkernet.org/usage/
It's the lightnet thing to do. :)
That aproach
He makes some interesting points, but I don't buy his argument that
no one can actually make use of the licenses because there are too
many of them. Countless people use the licenses for adding someone
else's media to their work. I've lost track of the number of times
I've utilized CC music in my
Markus Sandy wrote:
Pete Prodoehl wrote
Until then, if you release your work under a CC license, you might as
well outline what you think it means, as I've attempted to do here:
http://tinkernet.org/usage/
It's the lightnet thing to do. :)
that's very nicely done Pete
do you
Yes I agree with you that it is really up to a court to decide what
commercial is. I understand that personal definitions have no legal
merit. I was just pointing out what I think most people intend when
they use this license.
Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com
--- In
Meanwhile, it's ironic that his blog's fine print states © Copyright
2003-2005 SourceLabs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Because of this,
technically we can't quote anything on his blog without receiving his
permission first. Of course, that wouldn't be the case if it had been
a CC-licensed blog. :-)
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:49:42 +0100, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until then, if you release your work under a CC license, you might as
well outline what you think it means, as I've attempted to do here:
http://tinkernet.org/usage/
It's the lightnet
Andy Carvin wrote:
Meanwhile, it's ironic that his blog's fine print states � Copyright
2003-2005 SourceLabs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Because of this,
technically we can't quote anything on his blog without receiving his
permission first. Of course, that wouldn't be the case if it had been
If you look at what is listed for Attribution it says:
You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or
licensor.
For attribution on the web a link back is usually considered appropriate.
In print media, often its a byline of some kind.
-Josh
On 3/7/06, Pete Prodoehl
You would think so, but some media outlets have argued that fair use
doesn't apply when you redistribute the work internationally. So if I
copied parts of his blog and shared it with a closed group (say a
classroom), that'd be fair use. But blogging it, they would argue, is
simple redistributing
Yes, but you can also throw away all of your copy-rights, but purposefullyplace your work in the public domain ahead of time.
- Andreas
Andreas - in the US, copyright is automatic, even if you don't want it
to be. This was one of the primary motivators of the CC project.
b
---Brett
this came up recently for me
do i want a text link? how big? where placed?
one question that arises:
would you consider the link to your content as sufficient "attribution"
or is this a separate link to your site?
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
If you look at what is listed for
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:51:05 +0100, Brett Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, but you can also throw away all of your copy-rights, but
purposefully
place your work in the public domain ahead of time.
Andreas - in the US, copyright is automatic, even if you don't want it to
be. This
Yes, any creative work is automatically All Rights Reserved by
default, unless otherwise stated. And one of those rights is the right
to waive your rights.
-Josh
On 3/7/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:51:05 +0100, Brett Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brett Gaylor wrote:
Yes,
but you can also throw away all of your copy-rights, but purposefully
place your work in the public domain ahead of time.
- Andreas
Andreas - in the US, copyright is automatic, even if you don't want it
to be. This was one of the primary
yes, josh, i believe your'e right. i know that, in canada, as an artist, my work has automatic copyright protection unless i specify otherwise. i imagine that is why the public domain choice is available on CC licensing.
-AnneOn 3/7/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, any creative
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, with the exception of most work created by the feds, it seems that
there is no longer a way to place something in the public domain other
than to publicly declare it to be so (i.e., put an icon on it?).
does
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:49:13 +0100, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You would think so, but some media outlets have argued that fair use
doesn't apply when you redistribute the work internationally. So if I
copied parts of his blog and shared it with a closed group (say a
classroom),
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:18:23 +0100, Ms. Kitka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, with the exception of most work created by the feds, it seems that
there is no longer a way to place something in the public domain other
Actually, I don't think it's accurate that personal use has no legal
merit. I recently went to a presentation on fair use usage by
independent filmmakers. There was a lawyer from EFF there, Fred von
Lohmann, including Patricia Aufdeheide who worked to formulate a Best
Practices paper for fair
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:49:13 +0100, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
[1] Funny story: The USA didn't want to play along with the
international
community at first (big surprise there) and only
Open Source is wy more confusing than CC.
To be certified Open Source you must use an Open Source license, and
there are way more options than the 18 CC licenses.
Here's a taste of them:
http://opensource.org/licenses/
Open Source is actually pretty tricky and I think a lot of people
throw
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:37:20 +0100, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the presentation at Mashup Camp, Lawrence Lessig said that it makes
more sense as the law worked before, that you had to initiate a
copyright otherwise it was public domain. I agree with that, intent
is actively chosen not
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Open Source is wy more confusing than CC.
To be certified Open Source you must use an Open Source license, and
there are way more options than the 18 CC licenses.
Here's a taste of them:
http://opensource.org/licenses/
Open Source is actually pretty tricky and
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:37:20 +0100, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the presentation at Mashup Camp, Lawrence Lessig said that it makes
more sense as the law worked before, that you had to initiate a
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:09:06 +0100, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Automatic
copyright appears to extreme in the other direction, what happens when
someone dies, doesn't the copyright revert to another entity then
automatically and continue to have the work unavailable?
That is an argument
41 matches
Mail list logo
