[cc-community] avoiding the CC licensing path by rights users

John Hendrik Weitzmann jhweitzmann at mx.uni-saarland.de
Sun Apr 13 16:44:15 EDT 2008


a good way around the "a big corporation is going to take my stuff"
problem is to use a license with the share alike (SA) option in it, such
as BY-SA. Multinational corporations usually - due to internal rules -
cannot easily redistribute their own material under copyleft conditions,
which they would have to in order to abide by the SA option.

greetz,
John


Barbara Bowen schrieb:
> Hello, CC Community Folks,
> 
> I just joined this discussion list yesterday. I’ve read today’s emails,
> but not all those in the archives.
> 
> I’d 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.
> 
> It’s 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 it’s not for commercial purposes.
> 
> I thought a CC “Attribution, Share-Alike, Non-Commercial” License would
> be a way to accomplish this.  But from what I’ve read in today’s posts,
> it appears the CC License may simply be confusing, rather than
> facilitative, partly  because it’s 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 “leading edge” 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



More information about the cc-community mailing list