To my mind linking or embedding is just another way of making content available to an audience other than the one which visits your own website ... thus...its redistribution.
As Steve points out, however, it usually the other aspects of the CC licence that are being ignored. The parts that require attribution or forbid the commerical use of that content. To my mind CC does absolutely cover linking and embedding ... and even if it doesn't then the content would have to fall back to a full copyright by default - otherwise there would be zero protection afforded any material on the web at all. These sites need to honor the requirements of the CC license or not link/embed/show the content at all ... because if they don't honor ALL of the CC license it's a copyright violation just as much as it would have been if the content were under a full copyright all the time. (and now to confuse the issue... but if they do meet the other requirements such as attribution and commercial use, etc ... they should be allowed to redistribute the content to their audience ... that's the whole point of the feed the content creator offered ... as long as they meet the license agreement - it's free exposure.) On 11/5/05, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Creative Commons licenses deal with far more than just redistribution > of works. > > Linking is one thing, embedding is quite another. The content creator > has the absolute right to deny people permission to embed the work > files in their own websites etc. > > If you publically display the work, you need to check whether you have > the rights to do so. Under most CC licenses you have the right to do > so as long as it is not for profit, as long as you give proper > attribution to the author, and as long as you make the terms of the > license clear. > > There are websites that do none of those things. They clearly ignore > the rights of the creator. I do not need a lawyer to spot some very > clear violations, though there are grey areas too. > > There are some people who use CC licenses who dont follow the terms > properly either and probably invalidate their own license before > theyve even started. > > Syndicating content should not imply that the creator has given up any > of their rights. Syndication does pose a technical issue in terms of > sticking to the requirement to include the CC license or URI wherever > the work is shown/with every copy of the work. The easiest way round > it is if people include cc info in the video itself, because even > though CC RSS feed thing exists, not enough aggregators etc make use > of it. > > Maybe Im wrong, Im always ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if you > read the full versions of any CC license it surely isnt as limited as > you suggest? > > Steve of Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lucas Gonze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On 11/5/05, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Its the attribution and no-commercial-use clauses in cc licenses that > > > most leechy sites are technically falling foul of. > > > > None of these sites that I am aware of are doing redistribution, just > > linking or embedding, so the cc license doesn't apply. > > > > There are never licensing requirements for linking. Otherwise there > > would be no web. > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > -- http://www.DavidMeade.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
