[cc-community] avoiding the CC licensing path by rights users
Gavin Baker
gavin at gavinbaker.com
Thu Apr 10 20:33:30 EDT 2008
Barbara,
Don't let the chatter on this list fool you. When we discuss problems
here, they're the exception rather than the rule. There are (literally)
millions of CC-licensed works on the Web; most of their authors have never
had a problem with a license.
Your client's motives are gracious and well-informed. Sharing educational
resources is an important and valuable action. Removing unnecessary
permissions barriers to downstream users (people who would later use the
work) is an integral part of that sharing. CC's licenses are the
most-recognized and best-supported mechanism for doing so.
Indeed, using an open license (such as CC's licenses) is so integral to
the practice of open educational resources (OERs) that they can't
rightfully be called OERs otherwise. Otherwise, their learning objects are
merely gratis (no price) but lack the re-use rights which makes OERs so
useful.
As to a license, I would recommend a CC license given its wide recognition
and extensive support. As to a particular license, I would advise your
client to think carefully about their goals.
Being attributed is almost universally desired. This often happens, even
in the absence of legal compulsion, but there is little harm in using
copyright to compel attribution if they wish to.
Allowing derivation is essential to the practice of OERs. A license which
prohibits derivatives (such as CC licenses with the ND clause) should be
strongly advised against.
Does your client wish to compel downstream users who modify the work to
make those modifications similarly free? If so, CC licenses with the SA
clause might be recommended. However, the Share Alike clause also
prohibits the mixing of works using incompatible licenses (such as the
GFDL used by Wikipedia), so there is a cost.
Does your client really wish to prohibit commercial use? You should
explain that this excludes uses such as selling printed copies at a small
profit (say, in communities with little Internet access) -- no matter how
reasonable the profit margin and no matter how much the user invested
(say, in translating the work into another language, bundling it with
other valuable resources, etc.). In fairness, it also excludes uses which
extract significant profit (though bad actors may simply pirate the work
anyway, no matter how restrictive your license -- a condition over which
your client realistically has little control).
You might ask why the client thinks s/he wants to prohibit commercial use.
It may simply be a knee-jerk reaction ("I don't want some big company
making money off of this"). But they should realize that nobody will be
able to make money from their work without adding value; after all, users
can get the original for free from your client's Web site. On the other
hand, the NC clause prohibits many ways of funding the redistribution,
adaption, etc. of their work. So if your client's goal is to allow the
maximum extraction of value from their work, the NC clause may be at
cross-purposes with their goal.
On Thu, April 10, 2008 3:06 pm, Barbara Bowen wrote:
> Hello, CC Community Folks,
>
> I just joined this discussion list yesterday. I¹ve read today¹s emails,
> but
> not all those in the archives.
>
> I¹d appreciate any thoughts you may be willing to share about the
> following
> situation.
>
> I am advising a non-profit that is working with teachers and wants to
> share
> the work products the teachers have developed with the wider education
> community.
>
> It¹s okay with them if other educators incorporate chunks of a document as
> part of a new document as long as they cite the original author and that
> it¹s not for commercial purposes.
>
> I thought a CC ³Attribution, Share-Alike, Non-Commercial² License would be
> a
> way to accomplish this. But from what I¹ve read in today¹s posts, it
> appears the CC License may simply be confusing, rather than facilitative,
> partly because it¹s still in its early stages of becoming a commonly
> recognized and used practice.
>
> Anyone willing to weigh in on whether you think the benefits of using the
> CC
> License, e.g,, posting in Open Education Resources (OER), and being on
> the
> ³leading edge² os sharing work via the web, are worth the potential
> confusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Barbara
> - -
> Barbara Bowen, PhD
> Managing Director
>
> http://www.soundknowledgestrategies.com
> 360.774.6192
>
>
>
>
> On 4/10/08 11:22 AM, "Matthew J. Agnello" <matt.agnello at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. One of the weaknesses of CC is that without some sort of marking
>> within the work, there's no guarantee that a link to CC somewhere near
>> the
>> work means the work is licensed under those terms. We all assume links
>> equal
>> licenses, even the tiny, difficult to find ones on Flickr, and perhaps a
>> court
>> would agree. But big companies like contracts, especially if they have
>> to
>> answer to Errors and Omissions insurance people who are notoriously
>> picky
>> about what constitutes copyright infringement.
>>
>> So, the problem is connecting work and license, and a company would
>> rather
>> verify that connection through a traditional contract than by taking a
>> risk
>> with a "random photograph on a random website using a random license,"
>> as
>> jonathan said.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
--
Gavin Baker
http://www.gavinbaker.com/
gavin at gavinbaker.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list