[cc-community] Re: When non-CC content is posted on a CC-site (without permission)
kj at cyberlaw.se
Tue Feb 22 11:05:17 EST 2005
Although I am of the opinion that there *should* be a wide range of
allowed "fair", "non-commercial" or "personal" uses of copyrighted
works, Wappling does have a point.
In many cases, using other peoples works (e.g. images) without
permission is copyright infringement in the eyes of the law. Adding a CC
license makes matters even worse since it gives third parties the
impression that they can use the work under the conditions specified in
the CC license.
I think one of the main benefits of CC licenses is that they have become
"standard" licenses. You know what you're allowed to do just by looking
at one sentence (although, as I have said before, I think you should
always explicitly state which CC license you use). Meta data takes this
one step further and enables you to search for CC licensed images (etc)
or have your browser display CC icons and so on.
"Pollution" of the commons with non-CC content is a problem in this
context. I do not think that this necessarily would give Creative
Commons (the organisation or the concept) a bad reputation. However, it
reduces the value of the commons.
On the other hand, I am not quite sure what could be done about this. Of
course there could be more information/guidelines available from
creativecommons.org but it would still be up to the users to take the
time to read it. For someone publishing a blog, for example, CC licenses
are also about convenience. It's easy. You just tick a few boxes and
paste some HTML code somewhere on your own site and you never have to
think about it again. :-/
ask wappling wrote:
> Ryan McGregor said on Fri Feb 18 08:44:27 EST 2005:
>> You could put something along the lines of
>> "Copying without permission from copyright holder forbidden"
>> underneath each and every picture.
>> I know this is a pain in the ass but people are stupid, so you need to
>> lay things out easily for them :-P
> Isn't that *exactly* what copyright means though? If people are this
> stupid, wouldn't it also be in the interest of CC to educate the dumb
> masses about copyright, explaining that posting stolen images under a CC
> "free for all to use if ya link back" licence is a clear breach of
> copyright? Else CC's good name is equated with the idiots? See what I mean?
> It's one thing that the average livejournal user is a dolt when it comes
> to copyright, one expects that a CC user is a little more clued in.
> Since this is clearly not the case and is beginning to reflect (badly)
> on CC, should CC not put up a simple "here are things you shouldn't be
> doing with your CC licence" page?
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
e-mail: kj at cyberlaw.se
Jabber: jonsson at jabber.org
GPG key: http://www.cyberlaw.se/gpgkey.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20050222/706e0002/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-community