babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » the media   » Creative Commons license types

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Creative Commons license types
Babbler # 560

posted 14 September 2008 06:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, I'm on Flickr and I have these choices for creative commons if I don't want to say "all rights reserved" for my photos.

What should I choose? What would/do you choose?

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons

Attribution Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons

Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 637

posted 14 September 2008 06:36 PM      Profile for scott   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is up to you. It is basically a system that allows you to decide how you would like to allow your work to be used, while allowing you to retain whatever rights that you choose.

Unless there is a reason not to I would choose "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons". This would allow non commercial use of your work but you would be credited if it is used. If you don't want your work messed with pick "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons". The door is still, open for someone to offer you cash for whatever rights you wish to sign over.

I am a member of the deviantART community where where the opportunity to flag your work with creative commons attributes is provided. Because a lot of what happens on DA is reworking of stock images or resources, creating various types of mashups etc., "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons" is common.

flikr is a bit different because it is more or less straight photography with little reworking of others work.

It depends on the image too. You might have a strong sense of attachment to certain images, and not want them altered or used in a way that you don't approve of in advance. Other images you might not care so much about, or you might be interested to see what someone else may want to take off with it.

If someone wanted to take one of my images and smash capitalism (or smash the state or whatever) I would be OK with it. If a commercial venture were to make swacks of cash with it I think I would want to be able to say no way hosé or else take a cut (and use to proceeds to smash capitalism or smash the state or whatever).

[ 14 September 2008: Message edited by: scott ]

From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 7072

posted 15 September 2008 03:10 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You might want to be careful using these licences. Once you put a CC licence on it, you really have no control over who uses it (beyond what the original licence says).

For example, a white supremacist group, someone from a right-wing bulletin board, or just a jerk could use it how they see fit. As long as they weren't using it for commercial reasons, they are legally using the images. If you use the No Derivatives licence, they can't alter the photo, but they could still surround it with a lot of slanderous text.

To protect yourself, you should go the traditional copyright route. That way, if you ever had to get a lawyer, go to court etc. you would be protected (and get them to take down an image).

Whereas with the CC, you really have given up your right to protect your images (especially a problem if they are photos of you or friends).

[ 15 September 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
Babbler # 8013

posted 19 September 2008 04:22 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My stuff on appropedia and on instructables is released under some creative commons licence too. I did not realize there were so many of them.
I release it under these licences so that nobody can patent the stuff.
As a private citizen, patenting in unaffordable for me.
So I would rather all get the benefit quickly rather than some jerk with money stall it for 10 years while he maintains a patent.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008