Author Topic: Creative Commons  (Read 750 times)

Spriggan

  • Administrator
  • Level 78
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • Fell Points: 31
  • Yes, I am this awesome
    • View Profile
    • Legacies Lost
Creative Commons
« on: August 01, 2006, 07:04:40 PM »
Since EUOL wanted it moved I'm obliging.

So what is it about CC that makes people think it's better and more legally sound then regular copyright?  Why in the world would you want to go with something more restrictive then regular copyright?

http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118
Quote

1.) "Classical Copyright" vs. "Creative Commons"
CC licences suggest, that the main feature of classical copyright is "All rights reserved", whilst the approach of CC licenses is "Some rights reserved".
This juxtaposition is simply false. Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to "sell" or grant and which to retain. The "Some rights reserved" concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright.
Although in the deeper pages of their website CC acknowledges that their licensing system is based on copyright itself, you just need to write the following words: "Creative Commons" and "alternative" into Google to find out how many people do not recognize this legally evident acknowledgment, and how many people are rather impressed by their suggestion.

and what about the downsides?
Quote

You can read the Commons Deed form, the "Frequently Asked Questions" or "Licenses explained" pages of the CC website (cf sources), you will not find some of the most important elements of CC licenses. You can only find this information on the bottom of a deep page:

"Every license
– applies worldwide
– lasts for the duration of the work's copyright
– is not revocable"

They are effective worldwide, and you can never change your mind, which is anyway clearly forbidden by a number of copyright acts.


Also CC has only been upheld in one court ruling, and that was in the Netherlands.

What I want to hear, and not from random fanboys are blog articles but from an actual lawyer, is what I would gain from using CC over regular copyright?  I just quoted and linked to one so lets get out of the realm of internet "he said, she said" and get down to the legal facts.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2006, 07:06:05 PM by Spriggan »
Screw it, I'm buying crayons and paper. I can imagineer my own adventures! Wheeee!

Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.


digitalbias

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Creative Commons
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2006, 05:35:50 PM »
I wondered where this thread had gone to.

I don't think you'll find many lawyers that have posted their opinion about Creative Commons anywhere except for the sponsor Larry Lessig. I've been watching it since it was created a number of years ago and from the general opinion I've heard is that it's viable.

People like Brandon have said they have gotten advice about using it from corporate lawyers, and people like Cory Doctorow (http://www.craphound.com/)  have now published (http://www.craphound.com/down/) a (http://www.craphound.com/est/) number (http://www.craphound.com/someone) of CC licensed books.

Even Microsoft has published stuff under CC (http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/rss/sse/ - look at section 6)

So, while I haven't talked to any lawyers about it, and I haven't seen any comments about it from lawyers except for Larry, it appears that orginizations with lawyers have looked at it and are using it.

As for what you get? I think ease of use, granular right grants and a common vocabulary (i.e. if I say I'm using a Attribution license, people know what is involved) are the biggest benefits.

You can always look at the marketing material from CC itself:
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/fullrights
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/examples

Of course this is all moot because IANAL and I doubt you get many of them here.