Proposal: Commons Force

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

David Gerard-2
2009/9/7 Sage Ross <[hidden email]>:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to intervene in a contract between two people and only two people.

> This kind of attitude seems to me to be a byproduct of the fact that,
> despite being intended to help fix the flaws in the copyright system,
> Creative Commons and other free licenses are "hacks" that are built on
> top of copyright.  The construction of CC licenses as contracts
> between copyright owner and user is part of the hack, but not
> necessarily ideal for promoting a robust creative commons (in the
> lower case, general sense).


Indeed. Geoffrey fails to appreciate that a CC violation really is
everyone's business.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Sage Ross
In reply to this post by wiki-lists
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sage Ross wrote:
>>
>> If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of
>> concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license
>> would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and
>> available for others to use and adapt.
>
>
> The problem is that YOU have no knowledge whether a copyleft license is
> being violated or not. It is a gross arrogance on your part presume that
> because it is CC-BY-SA in one context that all such uses must be CC-BY-SA.
>
> If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA
> license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume
> that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not
> if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the
> copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two
> parties you simple do not know.
>

In many cases it's very obvious.  If an image credit says "Sage
Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC
license), it's clear that it's not being used properly.  If the image
credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on
Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear.

Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking
the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed.  But there are
a lot of times when you can know.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Bod Notbod
In reply to this post by wiki-lists
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> That's easily answered.
>>
>> I'm not "renaming the license". I'm proposing that there be a tick box
>> for that very same license with a more friendly tag that tells the
>> user "can be used on Wikipedia". The license doesn't change, it's just
>> the way it's communicated.
>>
>> I love and support the Creative Commons licenses, but they can present
>> you with a lot of reading. A decision that says "can be used on
>> Wikipedia" would be much more immediate.
>>
>
> It is also very misleading. Whilst many people would love to have their
> work on wikipedia they might not want it used by Microsoft, News
> International, Ford, Walmart, the Meat Marketing Board, or etc. So if
> you feel that people need to be educated into using a license compatible
> with wikipedia, you really do need to spell it out for them that they
> are also making available to all those others too.

That's a very fair comment.

Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

David Gerard-2
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod <[hidden email]>:

> That's a very fair comment.
> Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues?


Indeed. Just note on CC-by and CC-by-sa that they also make it
eligible for Wikipedia.

Offer a tickbox for asking Wikipedia reviewers to check your image,
putting up a list somewhere. This will be *most* useful to us.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Bod Notbod
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod <[hidden email]>:
> Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues?

Yes. Just put "(This will allow your image to be used on Wikipedia)"
next to the "CC-BY-SA" option.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
A CC violation is not everyone's business. If A infringes on B's CC copyright, and party C pokes A about it, A can tell C to bugger off. It's like filing a DMCA notice when you don't own the work. Licensing is an agreement between two entities, not the community.




________________________________
From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force

2009/9/7 Sage Ross <[hidden email]>:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to intervene in a contract between two people and only two people.

> This kind of attitude seems to me to be a byproduct of the fact that,
> despite being intended to help fix the flaws in the copyright system,
> Creative Commons and other free licenses are "hacks" that are built on
> top of copyright.  The construction of CC licenses as contracts
> between copyright owner and user is part of the hack, but not
> necessarily ideal for promoting a robust creative commons (in the
> lower case, general sense).


Indeed. Geoffrey fails to appreciate that a CC violation really is
everyone's business.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Sage Ross
It still isn't the place of a third party to police someone else's copyrights.




________________________________
From: Sage Ross <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:32:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sage Ross wrote:
>>
>> If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of
>> concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license
>> would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and
>> available for others to use and adapt.
>
>
> The problem is that YOU have no knowledge whether a copyleft license is
> being violated or not. It is a gross arrogance on your part presume that
> because it is CC-BY-SA in one context that all such uses must be CC-BY-SA.
>
> If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA
> license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume
> that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not
> if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the
> copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two
> parties you simple do not know.
>

In many cases it's very obvious.  If an image credit says "Sage
Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC
license), it's clear that it's not being used properly.  If the image
credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on
Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear.

Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking
the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed.  But there are
a lot of times when you can know.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Bod Notbod
Bod Notbod wrote:

> I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for
> use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to

The problem with that kind of simplified explanation of what
CC-BY-SA means is that content that is "licensed for use on
Wikipedia" will be rejected from Wikipedia.  Only content that is
"licensed for use anywhere by anybody" will be accepted.  That
difference is the hardest one to explain, and can't really be
simplified away.  You would only get unhappy users who thought
they licensed it for use on Wikipedia but not for other purposes.


--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/7 Bod Notbod <[hidden email]>:
>> Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues?
>
> Yes. Just put "(This will allow your image to be used on Wikipedia)"
> next to the "CC-BY-SA" option.

This would suffer from exactly the same problem.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

wiki-lists
In reply to this post by Sage Ross
Sage Ross wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA
>> license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume
>> that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not
>> if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the
>> copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two
>> parties you simple do not know.
>>
>
> In many cases it's very obvious.  If an image credit says "Sage
> Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC
> license), it's clear that it's not being used properly.  If the image
> credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on
> Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear.
>
> Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking
> the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed.  But there are
> a lot of times when you can know.
>

The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my
pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license
link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the
flickr photopage, the information is available you just have to go look
for it a bit. Does that count in your world?

A whole mass of reusers are using some blogging or CMS pluggin or theme
(wordpress, drupal, etc) on their site few of which bother to attribute
let alone link to relevant licenses. If you feel the need to bitch at
anyone bitch at those developers.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Commons Force

Sage Ross
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:07 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my
> pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license
> link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the
> flickr photopage, the information is available you just have to go look
> for it a bit. Does that count in your world?

I generally try to enforce the spirit, rather the the letter, of
licenses.  If someone links back to the source, that's generally good
enough for me because someone who sees it has a practical way of
finding out the license and reusing it themselves if they want to.

The exception to that is when they are using it in a way that should
trigger the viral aspect of the copyleft license.  In that case, it's
important for them to acknowledge that in order to use my work they
have to free their own, and to notify others that their work as well
as mine if freely licensed.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12