Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: CC 2.0

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: CC 2.0
  • Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:31:32 -0500

>>>>> "ML" == Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> writes:

ML> Until last week on this list I don't recall ever hearing
ML> anyone voice support for in-license warranties.

But there were warranties in the licenses until last week! B-) I might
also note that the discussion of dropping the warranties happened on a
variety of blogs, and as far as I know not on this list.

One thing I would love to hear is from the warranty critics. Are they
planning on using the CC 2.0 licenses, if there are no warranties?
Supporting or advocating them? Or just carping some more? Do they
understand what the loss of warranty means for people who actually use
the licenses? Or are they just patting themselves on the back for a
flame war well waged?

Sal Randolph is the first person with a real stake in the licenses
I've seen who's actually come out against the warranties. I thought
her post was very interesting, but I disagree with her.

Personally, I find some of the arguments against warranties really
demeaning to the artists, writers, musicians and filmmakers and other
creatives who put their work under CC licenses. The general gist is
that anyone who releases their work under a CC license is a clueless
amateur, and the work they release is worth nothing (after all, if it
was worth something, why would they give it away?).

Most work I've seen and heard under CC licenses has been high-quality
and professional grade. I don't think there's any justification in
assuming that creators of CC-licensed work are making worthless crap
that licensees should use at their own peril. Most people who've put
the thought into applying a CC license have the knowledge and
wherewithal to clear the rights on what they're distributing.

I also think that there's a real ass-backwards idea of the
relationship between licensor and licensee. The idea being that the
licensor gets no benefit out of licensees redistributing work, so
licensees should always get the rotten end of the stick. In point of
fact, licensors get _great_ benefit out of publicity, distribution,
and re-publication. Not only that, but _every_ licensor gets benefits
when quality work is re-distributed and re-published. We all benefit
from CC's good reputation.

Making CC licenses the Gawrsh-I-dunno-how-this-works-whatever license
will, conversely, _hurt_ all creatives using the CC license. Muddying
the waters about whether CC-licensed work is copyright clean means
_everybody_'s work becomes less valuable, and _everybody_ loses those
advantages of free redistribution and republication.

I _want_ people to republish my work. I want people to use it, and
spread it around, because I believe it's good information and it helps
people. I _don't_ want to tell licensees that this may or may not be
my work, and it may or may not be illegal to redistribute it. That's
not the message I want to send. That's not the message that's going to
get my work redistributed.

I also found some of the arguments against warranties pretty
ridiculous. "What if I link to an image from another site I don't have
rights to? But there's a 'some rights reserved' image at the bottom of
the page? What then?" This is not a license issue; this is a page
layout issue. It's a blogging software issue. It's a wording issue
("Unless otherwise specified, all text and images..."). Some blogger's
inability to clearly specify what on their page they can and can't
license is not good enough cause to denigrate the worth of all the
great CC content out there.

I've read the Lenz Blog. It's a darn fine blog. But it's not good
enough that we should tarnish the reputation of all CC licensors just
to get a "Some Rights Reserved" image on its pages.

Me> I realize my continual harping on this issue is probably pretty
Me> annoying. I apologize for that.

ML> Not at all. It would've been nice if you harped when others
ML> were harping on the opposite, but your feedback is valuable in
ML> any case.

Thanks. I don't feel so bad, now.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page