Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: licence without original author credit

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: toddd AT mypse.goracer.de, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: licence without original author credit
  • Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:16:39 -0800

once again, for the 10,000th time on this list, the attribution requirement is much less "severe" than some of you are imaginging. credit should be provided in a manner "<x-tad-smaller>reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing." "Reasonable" is actually a legally meaningful term -- it allows for circumstances, context, and flexibility. Whatever the industry or subculture practice is for attribution -- like a radio station keeping a play list available upon request rather than calling out every last song as it's played -- that's all you have to do.</x-tad-smaller>

On Mar 1, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Gottfried Hofmann wrote:

Waiving attribution or not supplying a name is not an option in his case:

"we find this obligation seems to be impractical if you work with many different sample sources. canĀ“t expect anyone to seriously do that."
(And he's totally right imho)

really? have you seen http://ccmixter.org ? there are dozens, if not hundreds, of songs that provide attribution and a link to the songs they sample from. some of the songs sample over a dozen tracks. most albums that sample today provide a list of the samples (see e.g. the outkast double album, or dj shadow's first album, etc etc. etc.) is listing a name really such a big price to pay when a song is freely available with no rights clearance, no royalties?

are you all worried about hypotheticals here, or real life cases?


If someone modifies the material he can force attribution on the modifications - which would return the obligation with it's whole severity.



Why does CC not understand that there IS a demand for a CC 2.0 without the -BY- ?
I still see many ressources that use the 1.0 tag because there is no 2.0 without the -BY-.

Can you point me to them, along with some evidence that that's why they're not updated. I can be persuaded by evidence.

But the 1.0 licenses must have some flaws since otherwise they hadn't been updated ;-)

See extensive discussion of this in our blog archives -- you're late to the party.

Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
The 2.0 licenses allow the author to waive the attribution requirement. All you have to do is specify, where you attach the license to a page or a song, that you're waiving the attribution requirement. Here is the relevant text:
" c. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied;"
note: "if supplied" -- so if you don't want attribution, don't supply a name, or supply a pseudonym, or make clear in the copyright notice that you don't want attribution
On Feb 28, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:15:09PM +0100, incite wrote:

like to share our music without this complication. is there a way to
obtain a cc-license without this obligation?


You'd have to use one of the Version 1.0 licenses. All of the 2.0
licenses contain the attribution requirements. There's been previous
debate about this; perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the subject in more
detail.

At any rate, while you can modify the text of the CC 2.0 licenses to
suit your needs, you wouldn't be able to call it a CC license at that
point. So, either the 1.0 licenses, or a modified 2.0 license, seems
like the way to go.

You may also want to look at the CC sampling licenses, which may be
different. Perhaps they'll be more appropriate to your needs than the
regular CC licenses listed on the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
page.

--
Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Glenn Otis Brown
Executive Director
Creative Commons
glenn AT creativecommons.org
+1.415.946.3065 (telephone)
+1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
------------------------------------
(cc) Some rights reserved.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


Glenn Otis Brown
Executive Director
Creative Commons
glenn AT creativecommons.org
+1.415.946.3065 (telephone)
+1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
------------------------------------
(cc) Some rights reserved.
------------------------------------



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page