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

Giorgos Cheliotis giorgos at smu.edu.sg
Sun Feb 17 01:13:30 EST 2008


It is my understanding that the sampling license is retired, not the sampling+. See http://creativecommons.org/license/. But the sampling+ license would not achieve what the owner of Observatorio.info would have wished, as it allows for non-commercial copying of the entire work. Only the now deprecated original sampling license would satisfy their needs (though, again, it was designed specifically for audio material). 

________________________________

From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Fred Beneson
Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 1:03 PM
To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-community] Being called a thief for using CC



In fact CC has already created and "retired" the sampling and sampling+
+ licenses. The legal code is obviously still valid but they have 
ceased being available online.



F

On Feb 16, 2008, at 11:55 PM, "Giorgos Cheliotis" <giorgos at smu.edu.sg> 
wrote:

> This and similar cases previously discussed on this list make me 
> think that we may really need a "sampling" license which allows for 
> the creation of derivative works that use only parts of the original 
> work (i.e. some form of highly transformative use), while 
> prohibiting the copying or reuse of the entire original work. We do 
> have such licenses in CC, but only for audio. Why not extend this to 
> other media? This is what the owner of Observatorio.info should have 
> used instead of BY-NC-SA.
>
> I expect this to become an issue with other websites as well. Yes, 
> according to the BY-NC-SA license, or any "BY" licenses for that 
> matter, one may copy the entire website, but sometimes those using 
> the license are too quick to assume that this is NOT the case, as it 
> goes against their understanding of intellectual property rights and 
> would seem absurd. It is thus understandable that some owners of 
> sites like Observatorio.info would be "royally pissed", because what 
> they really wanted was a sampling license, not a BY-NC-SA, and they 
> never imagined what the consequences of using BY-NC-SA would be.
>
> And then Miguel gets caught in the middle of this huge 
> misunderstanding, when in fact it seems that he complied with the 
> terms of the license. It's just that the terms did not reflect what 
> the licensor really wanted to achieve.
>
> Giorgos
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> 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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5917 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080217/59a3c605/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-community mailing list