[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