[cc-community] using Creative Commons as a fig leave

Giorgos Cheliotis gcheliotis.lists at gmail.com
Mon Jul 6 23:27:20 EDT 2009


I had similar thoughts, that the license deed might include a warning  
for example if we have sufficient evidence that this kind of  
'misunderstanding' is common among users who can be tricked into  
assuming that the CC license is the only pertinent license for their  
content.

But I'm also thinking that in the long run, as netizens, sharers and  
producers of content, we would all like to have some sort of  
certification authority certifying online services with a 'fair terms'  
seal of approval (or whatever one may call it). Maybe CC can do that  
at some point and earn some revenue from it because the certification  
itself would be valuable to websites hosting content as it would  
provide a guarantee that certain principles are upheld, not only in  
terms of using CC, but also in terms of the TOS, revenue sharing, etc.  
Between us we know that certain websites have better practices than  
others, but this knowledge is not widespread. Similarly to how  
consumer and environmental protection bodies certify products in the  
marketplace so that consumers can more readily assess what they should  
use, we may also need a similar certification process for the youtubes  
and facebooks of this world. This would also decouple such issues from  
the licenses themselves, where the latter are just made available for  
anyone to use, but the certification process aims at helping me decide  
which online video hosting service I should use for my latest  
recording wihtout me having to go through lengthy and complex TOS  
pages every time.

Any thoughts on that?


On Jul 6, 2009, at 10:21 PM, drew Roberts wrote:

> On Monday 06 July 2009 19:26:09 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>> I must admit that I've don't have any brilliant ideas about how we
>> should tackle this.  For this, I call upon the collective brilliance
>> of the cc-community.
>
> As a start, (probably a temporary play) cc could develop a logo for  
> use by
> entities relying on the cc license grants only or in the case of NC  
> works by
> business, a very narrow and cc specified additional grant for  
> "entity" use
> only. (This might be hairy to define, perhaps there should be one  
> logo for
> the cc grants only and another to indicate the NC exemption?)
>
> In this way, people could be warned at the cc site to look extra  
> carefully at
> the TOS of any sites not displaying the logo.
>
> I am trying to develop some thoughts that I see as related here:
>
> Commitment To Freedom
> http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/03/commitment-to-freedom.html
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> _______________________________________________
> 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