Friday, October 27, 2006

Creative What?

Some folks advocate for the use of the so-called Creative License except that it doesn't have beep to do with creativity:

"You are free:

* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:
by
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
nc
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
sa
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one."


You telling me that, under the "creative" license, if I build on top of your work I have to distribute it your way????

What did you smoke last night, fella??

Labels: , ,

6 Comments:

Blogger ictlogist said...

Hey, take it easy :)

What this license means is that if i.e. you translate someone's work (then, you create a derivative work), you just cannot go and sell it and benefit from any commercial use of it.

Quite fair, I guess.

10:49 am  
Blogger Marcello said...

Read an explanation of the license

You can "mix" the different parts of the CC license so, you don't have to use share-alike or non-derivative or non-commercial, but the combination that suits better your idea(l)s.
Since one of the goals of CC supporters is to spread the use of the license, it's likely you'll find a lot of licenses with share-alike "on". BTW, it's the same mechanism used by the GPL software license, which gave it a huge success, along with some criticism...

8:23 pm  
Blogger Rosanna Tarsiero said...

Ok Marcello maybe my point wasn't clear... I don't have troubles with people wanting to be acknowledged and paid for their contribution to knowledge and wisdom. I do have problem with whoever thinks that they have the right to tell me what to do with the ideas that my mind produced after reading their article. It's dictatorial at best and stupid at worst.

1:19 am  
Blogger Marcello said...

Rosanna, what you can do with the item you have in front of you is what licenses are all about.
I see what annoys you is the nd clause. I may agree: if I were to distribute some content under Cr. Commons I'd probably never use nd. Nonetheless I think some people might find it useful in certain situations, so... choice is good.

And, btw, AFAIK, the "derivative works" definition on CCs' website doesn't cover your work with the ideas contained in the licensed item, but only the use of the actual parts of the work. If you look, examples range from translations to dramatizations, creating musical scores, etc. As I said before, I'd rather not use the nd clause, especially for real "creative" works.

Anyway, your post brings up an interesting (while not very likely to happen) point: what would happen if the CC-virus spreaded all over and all of human content were distributed under a CC-share-alike license? There would be probably much more less chances of being able to choose the licensing model for "new" content.

1:41 am  
Blogger Ton said...

Late to the party I know, but for some reason this post only now shows up in my feed-reader.

Anyway, I think the interpretation in the posting and the comments gets it wrong.
The CC licenses only stipulate what you can do without getting permission from the original author/maker first.

This is not the same as saying that all other forms of use are forbidden, just that you cannot 'freely' use/distribute it, but need to have an agreement with the originator first.

It is in short more an addendum to the usual copyright: the author specifies up front what type of uses she will always allow. In all other instances you need permission first.

In this light the nd, nc etc make perfect sense. If you want to distribute parts of my stuff you have incorporated in your stuff, you can do so without prior consent if it is under the same license. If you want it distributed under different conditions, then that is not forbidden but merely needs explicit consent first. Which is the usual way it works for any other stuff under copyright.

1:07 pm  
Blogger Rosanna Tarsiero said...

Ton,

of course one can put any limitations on his/her material. That is not the point.

The point is the term "creative".

Creative implies creativity. If I read something and I have to ask permission for publishing the idea my brain produces out of such reading, well, that stifles creativity.

I prefer the old copyright... nobody can dictate what I can publish out of the encounter between a reading and my mind as long as I acknowledge who I am citing.

And I am glad to acknowledge a person whose ego isn't so large to suppose to be entitled to stifle somebody else's creativity. And then call it creative!!!

11:17 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home