[cc-community] Re: When non-CC content is posted on a CC-site (without permission)

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Wed Feb 23 15:11:47 EST 2005

Rob Myers said:
> On 23 Feb 2005, at 16:12, Greg London wrote:
>> If it's really that they are clueless,
>> then language like "representation of
> My experience of the "representation" clause in the OGL is that it *is*
> useful to have such language in a license. It is redundant, and the

Perhaps the license itself doesn't have to be changed
(which is problematic enough as it is),
but the plain-language version of the licenses might
include some plain language saying

authors can only apply this license to works they create.
Applying this license to a work you don't own
plants a landmine that an innocent author might step on later,
thinking the work was CC, when actually it is owned by someone else.
Don't mine the commons! Don't put a CC license on someone else's work!

or something like that. short and sweet and metaphorically potent.

I tend to think that this isn't so much a malicious problem
as it is a mix of enthusiasm and lack of understanding
(with a dash of laziness added to prevent the simplest of checking)
that is causing people to slap a CC license on everything they see.

If it isn't malicious, but a lack of understanding,
then clarity in teh plain-language license should
fix it. If it is malicious, then no clause will do
any good anyway.

More information about the cc-community mailing list