[cc-community] Another person misunderstanding CC...

nile at deadbox.ath.cx nile at deadbox.ath.cx
Wed Feb 28 10:24:52 EST 2007


On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:21:59AM -0500, Fred Benenson wrote:
> 
> "NewTeeVee:* So what kind of license are you distributing the film under?
> Since it's without DRM, it would make it easier for others to incorporate in
> their work, at least technically.
> 
> *Steve O'Hear:* We retain full copyright. It's not Creative Commons. The
> problem with a CC license, is most people use the non-commercial one, which
> doesn't really help the next generation of filmmaker because even recouping
> costs is commercial. We had months of clearing rights to use images, et
> cetera.
> *NewTeeVee:* Makes sense. ... "

It sounds like he means he wants to stay away from all CC licenses
because -in some cases- he wouldn't be able to reuse other peoples'
NC'ed work. I agree that someone is misunderstanding CC, here.


> The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved.
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

Off topic, but does this mean that my message must be CC by-sa as well
because I've reused what you wrote in this reply? Meh, fair use should
cover it ;).


-nile

-- 
 .''`. |       John Nile Li
: :' : |   http://deadbox.ath.cx
`. `'  | This Sig Kills Fascists!
  `-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20070228/0d5138b0/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-community mailing list