Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

JD Lasica has posted a real people network vid he shot with Lessig - def worth watching if you missed it in his feed: On Mar 8, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: > around the 7/3/06 wtrainbow mentioned about [videoblogging] R

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

And because standards help make things understandable. There are three audiences in mind for each CC license: - humans - lawyers - robots These three constituents don't speak the same language, and thus CC provides standard templates with translations that can be read by each party. -Josh On 3/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 argum

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 t

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 chose

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 thro

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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)

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 creati

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 motivat

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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]> > wr

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 Attributi

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 Gayl

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

> 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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 Pet

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 ab

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 definiti

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 awa

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 b

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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 g

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: is creative commons broken?

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