[cc-community] avoiding the CC licensing path by rights users
Matthew J. Agnello
matt.agnello at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 11:40:15 EDT 2008
> I have thought of another possible reason for some players.
> c) Don't want to be seen as legitimizing Free licensing of copyright
> works.
That's a possibility, but I think it's simpler than that. When
deciding what they can and can't do, they're looking at the size of
your legal department. If you have none, they're pretty much free to
do what they like. There's little press coverage of CC, and copyright
cases rarely make news unless they involve something big -- and it has
to be pretty big. Nobody heard about how The Matrix was completely
ripped off of some Mexican engineer's book. Or the deal that followed.
And that was a big movie.
I know from suggesting CC licenses to my clients ("I could use this
music, but I would have to license your work CC BY-SA"), they find it
simply not worth their time to think about, even with the benefits
those licenses bring. I imagine busy executives at large media
companies will think the same way. It's just more legal requirements.
Because they have huge legal departments that do this every day, it's
easier to draft a tried and true release form and hand it to the
person whose work you want to use with zero legal strings attached.
For the average person who has no legal department, it's easier just
to follow the public license rules.
So, I suppose CC is simply the path less traveled for big media legal
departments, and instead they go with the path most traveled:
traditional release forms.
// Matt
----------
Matthew J. Agnello
http://www.hungryfilmmaker.com
< matt.agnello at gmail.com >
On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:36 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2008 05:56:15 Alek Tarkowski wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to share an anecdotal story that I find important, as it
>> might
>> hint a larger problem:
>>
>> A major Polish daily, in it's online version, published an article
>> illustrated by photos from Flickr. At least one of them was CC BY
>> licensed, and they did not provide proper attribution. I contacted
>> the
>> author of the photo and got a response, that she was contacted by
>> editors and gave them permission.
>>
>> In short, the editors avoided the CC licensing path. There are two
>> possibilites:
>> a) they did not notice / know about it - CC markings at Flickr are
>> notoriously small and there is no clear information / explanation of
>> what they mean
>> b) they did not consider this path sufficiently secure
>
> I have thought of another possible reason for some players.
> c) Don't want to be seen as legitimizing Free licensing of copyright
> works.
>>
>> I wonder, whether this happens more often - that CC is good for
>> private
>> use, but large institutional actors do not trust this dis-
>> intermediation
>> and rely on traditional licensing schemes....
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alek
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080410/3abd2ace/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080410/3abd2ace/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-community
mailing list