[cc-community] Being called a thief for using CC

mailinglists lists at atwood.org.uk
Sat Feb 16 10:44:18 EST 2008


As of 15:10 GMT Feb 16 2008 , the license on Observatorio claims a 
license of a 'creative commons type' ("tipo Creative Commons") with two 
alterations. My spanish is not quite good enough to understand. I have 
no idea if the alterations have been added since this whole thing began 
however. As far as  I can tell  the alteracions seek to clarify or 
extend the meaning of 'commercial' and 'attribution' right? THey wish to 
specify that 'commercial' includes having banners, user registry, or 
announcements from other webs?  And require direct link to the original 
translation which might be difficult if the derivitave work is in a 
medium other than connected-web-site

Can peolpe just extend/alter CC licnes in this way and still use the 
name of the CC?

*******************************
 From Observatorio.info

La licencia original es de tipo Creative Commons con posibilidad de 
seguir dicha licencia para contenidos específicos.

Aclaración 1: Como uso comercial en la licencia se estima cualquier 
página Web que tenga cualquier tipo de publicidad (Adsense, banners, 
anuncio de otras webs…) o registro de usuarios para su uso.

Aclaración 2: El reconocimiento debe ser con enlace DIRECTO a la pagina 
de Observatorio donde esté la imagen cuyo texto en español se ha 
copiado. Al final de cada texto incluimos los créditos originales 
proporcionados por APOD, que deberán incluirse igualmente.
***********************************

Rob Myers wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
> 
> Miguel Angel Barrera wrote:
> 
>> A couple of monts ago we decided to create a different site 
>> (http://fadd.corank.com) that takes the picture from APOD and copies the 
>> translations from Observatorio.info <http://Observatorio.info> 
>> (respecting 100% the by-nc-sa license) but with a different interface, 
>> and a few different features.
> 
> Since you don't seem to be charging for the service or benefiting from 
> it financially, and you aren't placing any part of the articles under a 
> different licence, you do seem to be complying with NC-SA and so this 
> shouldn't be a problem.
> 
>> Now this person is not only - we feel - misleading their visitors by 
>> making them believe that what we're doing is illegal (and possibly 
>> creating a small herd of people who will assume future cases like this 
>> one should be treated in the same way), but he is also writing in 
>> several blogs that he's found a "hole" in the CC license, because he 
>> released his work under CC so people could republish/reference/etc PARTS 
>> of their work, but not so people could duplicate all of the translations 
>> even if all the CC terms are honored.
> 
> Has he explained this in detail? He really shouldn't be able to do that 
> under NC-SA. Please can you forward (a translation of) his exact claim 
> of how this "hole" works to this list? If he's wrong hopefully people 
> will be able to say why, if he's right then CC really need to know.
> 
>> All we've done is to use the rights the CC license gives us, respecting 
>> of course the nc-by-sa (we even place a linkable icon of Observatory in 
>> our welcome page). We tried to explain this person that we feel that his 
>> view "a piece is ok, the entire work is not" is more consistent with 
>> copyright content and "fair use" than with Creative Commons, but that 
>> hasn't changed things a bit.
> 
> You can copy the unaltered work under all the main CC licences, that 
> isn't a special permission that ND adds. Is he assuming that SA is the 
> opposite of ND? This isn't the case.
> 
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> 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