[cc-community] What does NC means?
Nathan Yergler
nathan at creativecommons.org
Wed Sep 19 20:55:15 EDT 2007
<snip>
>
> > Creative Commons needs to do a better job at signaling these things,
>
> Bingo!
> > but I think it's headed in the direction.
>
> Can you point me to some hope?
One simple way we've tried to signal the license in a clearer way is
with the default license "buttons" we pass out. While all CC licenses
had a "some rights reserved" button in the past, the images themselves
now indicate the attributes of the license. See
http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/88x31.png for an example.
>
> > It's also a shame that the
> > signaling isn't as binary as it is with the GPL, but that is a reality we
> > must accept as a consequence of the ambitiousness of the CC mission.
> > Instead of offering one license for one very specific niche of work, CC
> > offers many licenses for many different kinds of works.
>
> Oh, no doubt the job is not an easy one.
> >
> > Take photography for example. What does it mean for me, as a photographer
> > to publish a work freely? Besides its particular license (believe it or
> > not) and subsequent copyright status, there are a lot of considerations to
> > take into account in deciding whether or not a photograph is free.
>
> Indeed. We do need a lot of education to go along with the licenses. I think
> the guys over at ourmedia.org had some desires to create such educational
> resources. Does CC want to get in this or cooperate with those who do?
> >
> > First, was I able to take the photograph freely? If it was in public, that
> > should be the case, but suppose I wasn't in public. When should I be free
> > to take that photograph?
> >
> > Moreover, the subjects of my photograph can greatly influence whether or
> > not I can use it freely. I cannot, for example, use a photograph of my
> > neighbor in an advertisement for a product he doesn't endorse. This has
> > nothing to do with copyright, but is an obvious, though arguably needed,
> > constraint on my freedom on my photos and my work as a photographer.
>
> Truly, copyright and the realted areas need some serious simplification. That
> is a different though perhaps related fight.
> >
> > What if I publish my photograph without metadata? Many budding
> > photographers learn from each other's techniques by discovering the
> > metadata from a particular photo. If I withhold this information am I
> > making my photograph less free?
> >
> > Do I need to publish my negatives? RAW Files? They're the rough equivalent
> > to source code in photography, and are certainly the "preferred working
> > format" of photography, but are certainly not required to share and learn
> > from a piece.
>
> Well, I for one, still think we should have ongoing efforts to create workable
> required source language for BY-SA.
> >
> > These are all questions that photographers have struggled with since the
> > inception of the photograph, and have yet to come to total consensus on.
> >
> > Anyway, I raise them as examples of the complications inherent to finding
> > "free culture" in media outside of software. Many creators in many other
> > mediums haven't come to terms with what it means for their work to be free,
> > and a copyright license may only be part of the solution.
>
> I willingly grant that it is difficult. I think there are some willing to slog
> through though.
> >
> >
> > F
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> >
> > On 9/19/07, Terry Hancock < hancock at anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> > > Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
> > > >>On Monday 17 September 2007 02:37 pm, Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
> > > >>>Thanks to all who contributed something to this discussion so far,
> > > >>>it's been interesting to follow. I understand the points
> > > >>
> > > >>about "libre"
> > > >>
> > > >>>and "gratis", but personally do not have much understanding
> > > >>
> > > >>for fears
> > > >>
> > > >>>of "contaminating" the libre movement so to say with
> > > >>
> > > >>non-libre content
> > > >>
> > > >>>and/or ideas. CC's strength in my view lies in the fact that it is
> > > >>>inclusive, and offers a menu of options, some of which are close to
> > > >>>FSF licenses, and some of which are not (but are still more liberal
> > > >>>than the usual copyright restrictions).
> > > >>
> > > >>I think many do not agree.
> > > >
> > > > That is ok by me, they do not have to :)
> > > >
> > > >>>A movement that is more inclusive has greater power, but will also
> > > >>>have to make compromises to include different needs and different
> > > >>>points of view.
> > > >>
> > > >>A house divided and all that???
> > > >>
> > > >>One major problem is that having this wide of a variety and
> > > >>not easy way to distinguish causes confusion. Perhaps you
> > > >>have not been exposed enough to have noticed this yet, or
> > > >>perhaps you do not care enough about it to have noticed it,
> > > >>but it is out there.
> > > >
> > > > If you are referring to the confusion that the definitions of some
> > > > licenses can cause I understand this as a practical matter that one may
> > > > be able to improve upon in future versions of the licenses. If on the
> > > > other hand this is about ideological purity, this can be dangerous.
> > > > Yes, a house divided against itself cannot stand.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the Creative Commons quite obviously has ridden on
> > > the coattails of the free software movement -- aping their style,
> > > language, and ideological messages. Yet, when it comes down to the
> > > details, they aren't following through on those ideals.
> > >
> > > But while some of the licenses are (IMHO, at least) "Free" in the same
> > > kind of meaningful way as the flagship free software licenses, the most
> > > widely-used CC licenses are something else entirely -- something which
> > > those of us who are concerned about the rise of "Free" culture don't
> > > like to see muddying up the ideological landscape.
> > >
> > > No one, for example, would kid themselves about what Microsoft was
> > > trying to do with their "Shared Source" licenses: Obviously, they were
> > > trying to take advantage of the goodwill of "Open Source" license --
> > > WITHOUT actually making their software open source.
> > >
> > > Most "open source" advocates would defend Microsoft's right to use just
> > > about any licensing deal they want to. So it's not the *terms* of
> > > "Shared Source" that are viewed as offensive.
> > >
> > > The problem is that Microsoft is deliberately trying to confuse you into
> > > thinking that "Shared Source" either "IS" or "IS JUST AS GOOD AS" "Open
> > > Source". As if it were an off-brand version of the same product,
> > > competing for consumers' interest (but which contains poisonous or
> > > environmentally hazardous chemicals which the original doesn't, say).
> > >
> > > The Creative Commons is regrettably behaving in much the same way as
> > > Microsoft -- making "not quite free" or perhaps "not free at all"
> > > licenses which are branded in such a way as to make them seem as if they
> > > are all part of the same broad movement.
> > >
> > > Microsoft's "Shared Source" and CC's "NC" and "ND" licenses are merely
> > > more friendly adjuncts to existing market practices. They do not
> > > represent revolutionary change. They're still "non-free" licenses.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, truly "free" licenses, like the By, By-SA, GPL, etc,
> > > are revolutionary. They create a wholly-different kind of marketplace
> > > and community. This distinction is REAL and SHARP.
> > >
> > > Hiding it by lumping the elements together into the CC modular licenses
> > > doesn't remove that real boundary. It just hides the reality from
> > > licensors and licensees, which makes it that much harder to talk about
> > > the revolutionary ideas of free culture.
> > >
> > > The situation is no different from commercial suppliers who try to
> > > co-opt and dilute the "Green" or "Organic" labels on food products by
> > > provided conventional "factory farm" products with misleading labelling.
> > > Conscientious consumers, who are making decision they hope are socially
> > > beneficial get duped. And that's unethical.
> > >
> > > The "Free" label is the same: people who want to participate in "free
> > > culture", want it to stand up to some kind of verifiable standard. Sure,
> > > you can read the fine print and find out for any particular product
> > > whether it really is "Green" or "Organic" or "Free" by your own
> > > particular standards -- but the whole point of labels is to eliminate
> > > the need for such caveats, by providing a mark that people can recognize
> > > and trust.
> > >
> > > CC has subverted that by using the same mark to mean a whole lot of
> > > conflicting things. This isn't the same as saying that those things
> > > shouldn't exist -- I can personally think of practical things I might
> > > want to use the NC licenses for. But CC has long sense established a
> > > practice of advertising "Creative Commons Licensing" rather than
> > > particular, functuonally-related licenses.
> > >
> > > I think this was ultimately accidental. I think that the writers of the
> > > CC license modules really didn't think they would create so many
> > > incompatibilities. They ignored the real boundary because they didn't
> > > see it, or didn't know exactly where it lay, not because they wanted to
> > > dupe people.
> > >
> > > But after the fact, it's still a problem.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Terry
> > >
> > > --
> > > Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> > > Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-community mailing list
> > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
> > !DSPAM:46f0b05c230881804284693!
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
More information about the cc-community
mailing list