It sounds like what you're referring to is "Attribution No Deriviatives." This allows
commercial and non-commercial that leaves the content unchanged and gives attribution.

If you used "Attribution Share Alike" others can alter your content, remix, mash-up etc.

There are myriad variations but if you don't want your content altered Share Alike is not
the way to go.

One other thing to keep in mind is that these licenses last in perpetuity unless they are
violated, then they can be revoked for that specific party.  So if you do attache a CC license
to a work it's basically attached forever. Something to think about.

Will



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wanted to keep this conversation going - been thinking about it for a
> while now.
>
> Looking for help thinking through this...
>
> So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are free to
> use my work commercially only when they use the work in it's unaltered
> entirety, for example, a compilation DVD or revlog on a site with
> advertising. Also they have to give attribution and make clear the terms of
> this license. So if you bought a DVD with some of my videoblogs included on
> it you would know that they were available for free on my site. It would be
> up to the consumer to decide if the extra value of the compilation DVD was
> worth the cost.
>
> The benefits to me are wider distribution (possibly).
>
> Nobody is going to get rich off of my content, especially if they have to
> make clear the license terms (not withstanding the fact that nobody is going
> to get rich off of it period).
>
> Am I missing anything? What other implications are there?
>
> Thanks,
> Verdi
>






SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to