Following on from that point, heres some exceptionally clear stuff from the creative commons site:
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/fullrights "All Creative Commons licenses have many important features in common. Every license will help you * retain your copyright * announce that other people's fair use, first sale, and free expression rights are not affected by the license. Every license requires licensees * to get your permission to do any of the things you choose to restrict e.g., make a commercial use, create a derivative work; * to keep any copyright notice intact on all copies of your work; * to link to your license from copies of the work; * not to alter the terms of the license * not to use technology to restrict other licensees' lawful uses of the work Every license allows licensees, provided they live up to your conditions, * to copy the work * to distribute it * to display or perform it publicly * to make digital public performances of it (e.g., webcasting) * to shift the work into another format as a verbatim copy Every license * applies worldwide * lasts for the duration of the work's copyright * is not revocable Note that this list of features does not apply to the Public Domain Dedication, our Sampling Licenses, or Founder's Copyright. " So as you can see, this stuff is not compatible with the 'strong control' that is being suggested. I also find "not to use technology to restrict other licensees' lawful uses of the work" a very fascinating clause. The way I interpret it, it means that video hosts etc, must not restrict the viewers ability to copy the work, and therefore must not use any DRM or any of the gentler technologies that attempt to thwart people ability to download videos. More than a little interesting, the more I relearn about CC the more I remember the actual spirit of it, and feel that it may not be license that the majority of video show creators and services will actually want, especially if they need accurate viewing figures to get the right sponsorship deals. Personally Im in love with creators who want to do public domain or creative commons with derivatives allowed stuff, as the folk-like reuse of material is a wonderful thing, but only if the creator really wants to give that permission away and hasnt really though about all the occasions theyd like to restrict such stuff. Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ahh theres a big problem with number 4. It defeats a large chunks of > the rights you are giving with any of the creative commons licenses. > > To the best of my knowledge the CC licences give people the right to > "copy, distribute, display, and perform your work " providing they > stick to the other rules such as non-commercial. > > Therefore if anybody is currently putting out videos with creative > commons licences, there is nothing you can legally do to stop a > non-commercial entity such as myself from rehosting & redistributing > your videos, providing I stick to all the other rules of the license > you have selected. > > After all, without granting the rights to at a minimum copy, > distribute, display and perform, then its pretty much a normal > copyright that you want to use.
