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

[robert a/k/a r]

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] 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 see fit but if you make any money from it I require
>> 10% of gross revenue
>> and a foot massage)
>
> because it is backed up by a legal team willing to take someone to
> court to maintain this right if someone doesn't do what you say in
> your copy right agreement.
> -- 
> cheers
> Adrian Miles
> this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> hypertext.RMIT http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/admin/briefEmail.html 
> >
>



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Joshua Kinberg]

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 3/8/06, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 see fit but if you make any money from it I require
> >10% of gross revenue
> >and a foot massage)
>
> because it is backed up by a legal team willing to take someone to
> court to maintain this right if someone doesn't do what you say in
> your copy right agreement.
> --
> cheers
> Adrian Miles
> this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> hypertext.RMIT http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/admin/briefEmail.html >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 might  
actually foster dialogue and understanding.
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 against the duration of copyrights, not against  
automatic protection. Right now copyrights expire 70 years after the  
creator's death (in Denmark at least). That is simply too long (IMO), but  
it's not a flaw of automatic protection.

- Andreas
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Pete Prodoehl]

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 I think a lot of people
> throw the term around to mean something more like the "culture of
> openness," of which open source licensing may be a part of but not the
> entire thing.

I think CC becomes confusing due to a great part to the "NonCommercial" 
clause. With open-source, I'm free (freedom!) to use GPL software for 
any commercial purposes, *including* selling it to whoever wants to buy 
it, as long as I make the source available and grant the same rights 
that I was granted. Right?

(Not to say that open-source licenses are drop-dead simple to 
understand, because they are not.)

Pete

-- 
http://tinkernet.org/
videoblog for the future...





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 given by default.

Good idea in theory, terrible in practice. Automatic protection is IMO a  
very good thing about copyrights. Imagine a world where you had to  
register to get protection: Every time you wrote a blog entry you would  
have to fill out a form, print your blog entry in 3 copies, fill out a  
check for $20 and mail everything to the Copyright Office.

Now *that* would stiffle creativity. It is easier to assume protection and  
have the author waive their rights. I also don't have to post a note on my  
furniture to retain my ownership rights - those are also automatic (the  
way I want them to be, even if I do live in a replica of the IKEA  
catalogue).

>  Right now any work that
> someone would want to reuse, they would have to contact all associated
> parties whether they intended it to be public domain or not.  It's an
> unnecessary burden on artistic development.

This is why you have Creative Commons. Don't tell me that writing "This  
work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution License" to be a  
burden.
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Joshua Kinberg]

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 the term around to mean something more like the "culture of
openness," of which open source licensing may be a part of but not the
entire thing.

-Josh



On 3/7/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> >> than to publicly declare it to be so (i.e., put an icon on it?).
> >>
> >> does anyone know if this is so?  or is there a form in Washington, DC
> >> that the copyright holders have to file somewhere?
> >
> > Wouldn't declaring something open source be like declaring something
> > new public domain?
>
> No, open source licenses such as GPL all have restrictions. Public Domain
> means no restrictions. What you do is write "This work is hereby placed in
> the Public Domain" (or words to that effect) on the title page on a book,
> in the credits of a video etc. No form needed.
>
> - Andreas
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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
>> than to publicly declare it to be so (i.e., put an icon on it?).
>>
>> does anyone know if this is so?  or is there a form in Washington, DC
>> that the copyright holders have to file somewhere?
>
> Wouldn't declaring something open source be like declaring something
> new public domain?

No, open source licenses such as GPL all have restrictions. Public Domain  
means no restrictions. What you do is write "This work is hereby placed in  
the Public Domain" (or words to that effect) on the title page on a book,  
in the credits of a video etc. No form needed.

- Andreas
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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), that'd be fair use. But blogging it, they would argue, is
> simple redistributing in an open and unlimited fashion, and thus in
> violation of their copyright.

Media outlets argue pretty insane things on a daily basis. I wouldn't seek  
legal advice from a media outlet no more than I would seek medical advice  
 from my plumber.

You of course have to follow the laws of the land where you reside.  
Fortunately we have things like the Berne Convention which makes sure that  
the majority of copyright law are identical from country to country [1]. I  
can assure you that the right to quote is not limited to the USA, and you  
can happily quote (quote, not republish) without breaking any laws. At  
least if you're living in the western world (IANAL).

Now, not all countries have the concept of Fair Use. In Denmark the  
content consumer has certain rights (including the right to quote), but  
nothing as broad as Fair Use in the US. So naturally I, as a Dane, can't  
hide behind Fair Use when reproducing a work. I have to follow Danish  
legislation.

However you seem to imply that if an American uses his Fair Use rights in  
an international setting (by publishing online) he then looses those  
rights. That's pretty insane and without a quote (haha, get it) from  
somewhere I just don't believe it. We are of course still talking about  
quoting and not a straight republishing. Public republishing would be  
illegal no matter how you did it.

[1] Funny story: The USA didn't want to play along with the international  
community at first (big surprise there) and only signed after thinking  
about it for 100 years (literally) in the late 1980s. There are still  
pretty insane sections in US copyright law like only being able to collect  
statutory damages for works registered at the copyright office even though  
copyright under the Berne Convention needs to be automatic.
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Anne Walk]

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 work is automatically "All Rights Reserved" bydefault, unless otherwise stated. And one of those rights is the rightto waive your rights.-JoshOn 3/7/06, Andreas Haugstrup <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 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 was one of the primary motivators of the CC project.> > b>> I am aware of that (it is like that in most places). That doesn't change> anything. You can still *throw away* your automatic copy-rights by
> explicitly placing your content in the public domain.>> --> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
 Yahoo! Groups Links>>>Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Anne Walk
http://loadedpun.com





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

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

[Markus Sandy]

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 motivators of the CC project.
b
 
  


you know, i've been wondering for some time now: how exactly does one
officially place something in the public domain in the US?

in the old days (pre sonny bono, thank you very much), one actually had
to copyright something or it would end up in the public domain
eventually

today copyright is automatic and *virtually* perpetual

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 anyone know if this is so?  or is there a form in Washington, DC
that the copyright holders have to file somewhere?


-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://node101.org
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

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

[Joshua Kinberg]

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:
>
> >> 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 was one of the primary motivators of the CC project.
> > b
>
> I am aware of that (it is like that in most places). That doesn't change
> anything. You can still *throw away* your automatic copy-rights by
> explicitly placing your content in the public domain.
>
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 was one of the primary motivators of the CC project.
> b

I am aware of that (it is like that in most places). That doesn't change  
anything. You can still *throw away* your automatic copy-rights by  
explicitly placing your content in the public domain.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Markus Sandy]

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 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
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 thing to do. :)

  
  That aproach devaluates the whole concept of Creative Commons. The goal
with CC is (among other things) to have a shared set of licenses, making
it *easy* for people to see exactly what they can and cannot do with your
content. If everyone went and wrote up a usage page saying "this is CC
licensed, but it's CC licensed under this interpretation I've written
below" we would be back to square one.

Use a CC license if you agree with what the license says. If not don't say
"CC licensed... in my interpretation", just write up guidelines without
mentioning Creative Commons.
  


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.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

But the problem is, almost no author/licensor specify anything in this
regard. So how are you supposed to do what they ask? That's why I
outlined the attribution part.

As for the commercial, bit. Won't it ultimately be up to a court to
decide what something like "commercial use" is? I was attempting to
define what I consider "commercial use" so that you would know if I had
a problem with what you planned to do.

Even the CC folks don't seem to be sure what NonCommercial means:

"So the topic of what constitutes a "noncommercial use" under those
Creative Commons licenses that contain the NonCommercial license option
has been a perennial source of debate over the years"

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752

I think I worded it badly when I wrote: "you might as well outline what
you think it means" in this case. I was not trying to redefine what a CC
license is, only clarify what *I* think it means.


Pete

--
http://tinkernet.org/
videoblog for the future...






Yahoo! Groups Links








  
  

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 





  



-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://node101.org
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

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

[Brett Gaylor]

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 Gaylorhttp://www.etherworks.cahttp://www.homelessnation.org





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

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

[Joshua Kinberg]

> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 thing to do. :)
> >
> > That aproach devaluates the whole concept of Creative Commons. The goal
> > with CC is (among other things) to have a shared set of licenses, making
> > it *easy* for people to see exactly what they can and cannot do with your
> > content. If everyone went and wrote up a usage page saying "this is CC
> > licensed, but it's CC licensed under this interpretation I've written
> > below" we would be back to square one.
> >
> > Use a CC license if you agree with what the license says. If not don't say
> > "CC licensed... in my interpretation", just write up guidelines without
> > mentioning Creative Commons.
>
>
> 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.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
>
> But the problem is, almost no author/licensor specify anything in this
> regard. So how are you supposed to do what they ask? That's why I
> outlined the attribution part.
>
> As for the commercial, bit. Won't it ultimately be up to a court to
> decide what something like "commercial use" is? I was attempting to
> define what I consider "commercial use" so that you would know if I had
> a problem with what you planned to do.
>
> Even the CC folks don't seem to be sure what NonCommercial means:
>
> "So the topic of what constitutes a "noncommercial use" under those
> Creative Commons licenses that contain the NonCommercial license option
> has been a perennial source of debate over the years"
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752
>
> I think I worded it badly when I wrote: "you might as well outline what
> you think it means" in this case. I was not trying to redefine what a CC
> license is, only clarify what *I* think it means.
>
>
> Pete
>
> --
> http://tinkernet.org/
> videoblog for the future...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Pete Prodoehl]

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
> a CC-licensed blog. :-)

I think we can cite and quote his blog, as that would be "fair use" - we 
are discussing it... Of course if you were to just flat-out republish 
it, you might have a problem.

Pete

-- 
http://tinkernet.org/
videoblog for the future...




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Pete Prodoehl]

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 thing to do. :)
> 
> That aproach devaluates the whole concept of Creative Commons. The goal  
> with CC is (among other things) to have a shared set of licenses, making  
> it *easy* for people to see exactly what they can and cannot do with your  
> content. If everyone went and wrote up a usage page saying "this is CC  
> licensed, but it's CC licensed under this interpretation I've written  
> below" we would be back to square one.
> 
> Use a CC license if you agree with what the license says. If not don't say  
> "CC licensed... in my interpretation", just write up guidelines without  
> mentioning Creative Commons.


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.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

But the problem is, almost no author/licensor specify anything in this 
regard. So how are you supposed to do what they ask? That's why I 
outlined the attribution part.

As for the commercial, bit. Won't it ultimately be up to a court to 
decide what something like "commercial use" is? I was attempting to 
define what I consider "commercial use" so that you would know if I had 
a problem with what you planned to do.

Even the CC folks don't seem to be sure what NonCommercial means:

"So the topic of what constitutes a "noncommercial use" under those 
Creative Commons licenses that contain the NonCommercial license option 
has been a perennial source of debate over the years"

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752

I think I worded it badly when I wrote: "you might as well outline what 
you think it means" in this case. I was not trying to redefine what a CC 
license is, only clarify what *I* think it means.


Pete

-- 
http://tinkernet.org/
videoblog for the future...





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Pete Prodoehl]

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 mind if we "copy" the general language for our own usage?
 >
 >

Yes, but you will have to pay me. (Just kidding)

Pete

-- 
http://tinkernet.org/
videoblog for the future...




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 devaluates the whole concept of Creative Commons. The goal  
with CC is (among other things) to have a shared set of licenses, making  
it *easy* for people to see exactly what they can and cannot do with your  
content. If everyone went and wrote up a usage page saying "this is CC  
licensed, but it's CC licensed under this interpretation I've written  
below" we would be back to square one.

Use a CC license if you agree with what the license says. If not don't say  
"CC licensed... in my interpretation", just write up guidelines without  
mentioning Creative Commons.
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 this?

I think CC just lists public domain because people who are interested in  
CC might also be interested in releasing their work to the public domain.  
No harm, no foul.

> But I do see his point on the definitions of commercial. I would
> suspect that most users would consider commercial use to be used in
> a way that directly makes a profit for the publisher. Like directly
> selling copies of the work, or used as the primary content in a for-
> profit venture. A website with ads isn't always a for-profit
> venture. But I agree that the commercial concept is pretty fuzzy.
> But I don't believe that anyone would consider a link to a resume to
> be an ad as he suggests.

First off all: What regular people think "commercial use" is doesn't mean  
a thing. At all (unless both parties in a dispute agrees, but then we  
wouldn't be talking). What matters is how a judge interprets the license  
and the law. The big issue with CC is that it has not been tested in court  
yet (unlike copyright law which has been tested a million billion times).  
What's really needed is some lawsuits centered around the CC licenses. I  
can't believe I just wrote that.

I don't know if the guy read the actual license. It is more specific than  
the *guidelines* you link to when you link to a license. The license says:

"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above  
in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial  
advantage or private monetary compensation[...]"

The operative word being "primarily". You can interpret the above in a  
multitude of ways (some ads might be okay, others not). As long as  
everyone is agreeing you're fine. The moment someone disagrees the courts  
will have to take a stand. Their interpretation means a whole lot and will  
set down guidelines for future users of CC material. The court's  
interpretation might not be what the authors of the CC license intended in  
which case the license will have to be rewritten and then the process will  
begin again.

So all we need is someone to sue.
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Markus Sandy]

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 lightnet thing to do. :)
>
>
>Pete
>
>  
>


-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://node101.org
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Pete Prodoehl]

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 commercial. I would 
> suspect that most users would consider commercial use to be used in 
> a way that directly makes a profit for the publisher. Like directly 
> selling copies of the work, or used as the primary content in a for-
> profit venture. A website with ads isn't always a for-profit 
> venture. But I agree that the commercial concept is pretty fuzzy. 
> But I don't believe that anyone would consider a link to a resume to 
> be an ad as he suggests.

We've been having the "what is commercial use" discussion on the web for 
years now. Google ads? Amazon affiliate links? PayPal donate button? 
What constitutes "commercial" exactly? Sadly, it will probably be 
determined in by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

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. :)


Pete

-- 
http://tinkernet.org/
videoblog for the future...





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Andreas Haugstrup]

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 all of your copy-rights, but purposefully  
place your work in the public domain ahead of time.

- Andreas
-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Markus Sandy]

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 up in cc-license group:

Mike Linksvayer wrote:

>His list of licenses that exist in the wild is slightly off.  #15 is not
>a license, #16 is a duplicate of #3, #7-#11 are barely used and you
>can't currently select any of them via creativecommons.org/license and
>the three sampling licenses and especially developing nations license
>are very little used.  Public Domain is not a license, though it is my
>favorite option.  :) 
>

To me, this just confirms that there is a general state of confusion 
over CC licenses.

Markus


-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://node101.org
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[trine berry]

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 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 > 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 > suspect that most users would consider commercial use to be used in > a way that directly makes a profit for the publisher. Like directly > selling copies of the work, or used as the primary content in a for- > profit venture. A website with ads isn't always a for-profit > venture. But I agree that the commercial concept is pretty fuzzy. > But I don't believe that anyone would consider a link to a resume to > be an ad as he suggests. > > > Bill Streeter > LO-FI SAINT LOUIS > www.lofistl.com > > --- 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_broke > n.html > > (here too: > > swik.net/User:alex/Alex+Bosworth% > 27s+Weblog/Creative+Commons+Is+Broken) > > > > > > There is also a lively discussion about this taking place on the > > cc_license mailing list > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > > > > > > Perhaps this would make a good topic of discussion for the next > > videobloggers video conference > > http://www.voxmedia.org/wiki/Videoblogger_Videoconferences > > Got any good stories related to Creative Commons Licensing? > > Come share them in about 9 hours. > > If you are normally asleep then, stop what you are doing and go to > sleep > > now so you'll be up for the conference ;) > > > > > > markus > > > > -- > > > > > > http://apperceptions.org > > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com > > http://node101.org > > aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >   SPONSORED LINKS  Individual  Fireant  Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 




  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

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

[Joshua Kinberg]

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
> 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
> suspect that most users would consider commercial use to be used in
> a way that directly makes a profit for the publisher. Like directly
> selling copies of the work, or used as the primary content in a for-
> profit venture. A website with ads isn't always a for-profit
> venture. But I agree that the commercial concept is pretty fuzzy.
> But I don't believe that anyone would consider a link to a resume to
> be an ad as he suggests.
>
>
> Bill Streeter
> LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
> www.lofistl.com
>
> --- 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_broke
> n.html
> > (here too:
> > swik.net/User:alex/Alex+Bosworth%
> 27s+Weblog/Creative+Commons+Is+Broken)
> >
> >
> > There is also a lively discussion about this taking place on the
> > cc_license mailing list
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> >
> > Perhaps this would make a good topic of discussion for the next
> > videobloggers video conference
> > http://www.voxmedia.org/wiki/Videoblogger_Videoconferences
> > Got any good stories related to Creative Commons Licensing?
> > Come share them in about 9 hours.
> > If you are normally asleep then, stop what you are doing and go to
> sleep
> > now so you'll be up for the conference ;)
> >
> >
> > markus
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > http://apperceptions.org
> > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
> > http://node101.org
> > aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

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

[Joshua Kinberg]

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 can
use a photo in an advertisement for a product, but you cannot sell a
poster of the photo as a product. So I guess that means that stock
photos are meant to be used in creative works (even for commercial
purposes) but they cannot *be* the creative work.

Here's an example of the license from istockphoto.com (although its
still pretty confusing and seemingly contradictory): <
http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php >

-Josh


On 3/7/06, Ms. Kitka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:
> > swik.net/User:alex/Alex+Bosworth%27s+Weblog/Creative+Commons+Is+Broken)
> >
> >
> > There is also a lively discussion about this taking place on the
> > cc_license mailing list
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> >
> > Perhaps this would make a good topic of discussion for the next
> > videobloggers video conference
> > http://www.voxmedia.org/wiki/Videoblogger_Videoconferences
> > Got any good stories related to Creative Commons Licensing?
> > Come share them in about 9 hours.
> > If you are normally asleep then, stop what you are doing and go to
> sleep
> > now so you'll be up for the conference ;)
> >
> >
> > markus
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > http://apperceptions.org
> > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
> > http://node101.org
> > aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/