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

John Hendrik Weitzmann jhweitzmann at mx.uni-saarland.de
Wed Apr 16 14:04:25 EDT 2008


the assumption is accurate for almost all larger business bodies, I used
the word "usually", didn't suggest that it's going to stay this way for
all eternity and am not being purposely vague here in any way.

cheers,
John



Fred Benenson schrieb:
> This is a poor assumption to make and is based off a hazy and purposely
> vague generalization about corporations behavior that may very well not
> hold true for much longer. In fact, it does a disservice to everyone
> working in the free culture community to propagate this assumption.
> 
> There will almost certainly be "a big corporation" who doesn't mind the
> BY-SA stipulation and uses the work according to the original author's
> chosen license. In this case, if the user had chosen BY-SA to avoid
> "feeling ripped off by a big corporation" they will almost certainly be
> disappointed in the protections offered by the BY-SA license (or any
> other copyleft one, for that matter) as the "big corporation" will still
> be free to use the work, so long as they don't prevent others from using
> it.
> 
> While the work's freedom is protected by the copyleft stipulation, the
> author feeling not "ripped off" probably won't be, as the consolation
> "Don't worry, *other* people can use your work too, the corporation
> can't retain control over it" will simply not be enough. 
> 
> Yes, we can and should work to encourage creators to release their work
> as freely as possible, but this perspective is a blunt and often
> confrontational one to take with creators who are considering releasing
> their work digitally, and sometimes, it can do more harm than good.
> 
> F
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:44 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann
> <jhweitzmann at mx.uni-saarland.de <mailto:jhweitzmann at mx.uni-saarland.de>>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>     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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
>     > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     cc-community mailing list
>     cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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