Talk:Creative Commons/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

tinypic.com is functionally Creative Commons

  • tinypic.com Popular site The tinypic fine print says all uploads are hyper creative commons: publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the TinyPic Services, you hereby grant to TinyPic and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels. Content will be publicly available, and TinyPic and other Users may copy or display Content outside of the TinyPic Services through the quick link feature or through any other display mechanisms.

I urge that this be on the front page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.134.173 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Still Not Getting It

  • Nowhere is the article does it actually say what CC means. It uses phrases like, "...enable copyright holders to grant some or all of their rights to the public..." What rights? Shouldn't there be something in this article somewhere that specifically states what a user can and cannot do with CC material? Thanks--Daniel 14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I second the comment on that, the article never directly says what it does or means 82.23.55.86 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely Stallman's criticism of CC, ironically. In general, CC just means that it's not as restricted as full on proprietary licenses which are the legal default. But CC never establishes a basic set of non-restrictions all CC licenses would have. So Daniel's question, which rights are not reserved for "CC material"? is unanswerable, since there is little to nothing that the various licenses have in common. --Gwern (contribs) 19:33 12 August 2007 (GMT)

Noteworthiness

Is this just an advertisement for a start-up company, or is something genuinely worth mentioning? CC was founded in 2001, but it arguably was "launched" in 2002.

Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation, funded entirely by grants and donations from the public.
It's not an ad, it is genuinely worth mentioning.


Which book was published first?

I added comment on Prof. Lessig's Free Culture and ESR's The Cathedral And the Bazaar to see if anyone can confirm which one was published commercially first, and also if Tim O'Reilly's book publisher is considered a 'major publisher' or not.

I'd say they certainly are. --Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Cathedral And the Bazaar was published under the Open Publication License, wasn't it? In 1999 CC haven't even started.

Pictures

How come the pictures are missing? --Bawolff 00:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Differences between version 1 and 2

Does anyone know what the differences between version 1 and 2 are?


CC: partnership with spammers ;((

I just don't know how to tell this without using words like fuck. So, excuse me that I didn't change the article in response to this.


Criticism

Like the arguments here and the above posters link. --Omegatron 19:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like the list of criticisms in the main article. Creative Commons usage and standards are still a work in progress but they're definitely in a growth cycle. I don't see CC going anywhere anytime soon and as it matures, the present criticisms will likely disappear as they're addressed and resolved. Isn't the Talk Page a more appropriate area for that?? We can hash out what the legal implications are, risks of CC usage and benefits and then include THAT in the main article. Yes?? I really see that section as having an expiration date and just inappropriate where it is. Please, let's discuss more.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Shortening list

The long list of CC-licensed content seemed kind of silly to me. Some of it was pretty obscure, and may have been link spam. I've drastically shortened it. If other people disagree with me, please feel free to add back in any entries that they feel are really well known and important. --Bcrowell 04:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took the 13 June version and create a List of works available under a Creative Commons License (which could possibly be given a better name). --Guaka 3 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
Perhaps Creative_Commons_Licensed_Works (or Content)? --kcbnac 15 August 2005 10:10 (CST, GMT -6:00)
Alphabetizing this list would be a good thing. HEL 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think this list is silly and doomed to futility. At best, it should be an article unto itself such as "List of CC-licensed content" in any standard of prominence could possibly be enforced, which I somehow doubt. This article is tagged for cleanup, and portions are quiet good, but then this list lowers the tone to the level of "wow, someone actually used it". It strikes me that no use should of the CC license deserves mentione which isn't prominent enough for an article on Wikipedia in its own right. The MIT OCW initiative is good example of prominence in its own right. Actually, I'm going to make an edit along those lines right now. MaxEnt 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I reworked the list toward the notion of sampling of while attempting to avoid passing judgement on the items already present. By no means does my continued inclusion of the items represent my judgement that the items belong. MaxEnt 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to say Amen to the modifications so far and would ultimately like to see that list eliminated entirely in favor of an external link on the main CC page to a site actively maintaining a list of CC works pages for those who are interested. I question whether maintaining that list on Wikipedia is an appropriate allocation of precious resources but I leave that to other more experienced and senior editors. Educate, don't obfuscate.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Significance

I added the reference to Extreme Democracy as a significant work published with a Creative Commons license and the link to the book's site. Someone (evidently BCrowell) had removed it. I realize that as co-editor I may appear to be planting a plug for an irrelevant work, but I think if you look into the nature of the book and the contributors you'll agree that the link belongs here.

I also edited incorrect information about Common Content. When moderation was added in reaction to submissions that were essentially spam, the site appeared to stop updating because there was no consistent moderation. Mike Linksvayer of Creative Commons came up with some volunteer moderators, though, so the site is active again. -- jonl 2:55 CDT, 23 Jul 2005

Criticisms

Why isn't there a criticisms section in the article? There are external links, so there are references we could use. --Borisblue 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the criticisms are stupid. The only reasonable arguments are the tired *AA polemics that without all rights reserved artists will starve and civilization will come crashing down. This, of course, is merely my POV. --Maru (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the criticisms are stupid, but NPOV policy dictates it has to be in the article. I'm too lazy to do it untill this weekend> Borisblue 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

it does seem that the criticisms section is basically missing. we should probably add to it with stuff like a summary of major criticisms. why don't i do it, you ask? why, because i'm too lazy even to get a username, let alone contribute to an article. 147.154.235.51 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone read the first criticisms link? It's a lot of Logorrhoea (postmodern/marketoid type speak), but no actual substance. I had to get to the third page before I found out what the actual criticism was, and even then it was vague. Ironically, the article was licensed under a creative commons license. If no one obejcts, I'm for removing the first one, since it's mostly a bunch of very sensationalist, content-free, incoherent ramblings. Nathan J. Yoder 01:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead.Borisblue 05:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I find it really interesting the just because *you* don't understand the criticisms you think that no-one else will. Postmodernism, feminism and other alternative (and often critical approaches) are extremely useful and provide alternative and important ways of thinking about the world. By somehow de-valuing these approaches (or even worse silencing them by deleteing them) I think you do a disservice to wikipedia. Have a look at Harvard Law School who thought they were worthy of debate and attention, even if you in your simplistic binary mindset cannot think outside of the box. http://hcs.harvard.edu/~cyberlaw/wiki/index.php/Rockstar/A6 Lemsip 18:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Who has thought out the "unspoken" criticisms, and if these people truly didn't speak them out loud, how do we know that they thought them out? If they are just some Wikipedian's thoughts on how CC might be criticized, then it's utterly unencyclopedic. If it's CC's own perceptions about what people might think about them, then the article should say so (with a reference). -- Jao 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the criticisms need to be present in the article, regardless of whether the criticisms are of low quality. The Dvorak criticism was at least 50% pure FUD, so I took the liberty of expanding on his criticisms. He goes off the rails in the second sentence of his lead paragraph, making no apparent effort to touch base with reality whatsoever. Not that it is up to me to say that in the article itself: I let his statement and the opposing statement from CC speak for themselves. MaxEnt 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a redundant entry above for this subject and I posted my thoughts there by mistake. Basically I think the criticisms of Creative Commons are now 90% FUD (especially 2 years after the post above) and detract rather than add to a NPOV. Everything I see linked here was way too subjective and unbalanced to begin with and today appears to be outdated. Creative Commons usage and refinement continues to move forward and eventually today's criticisms will be tomorrow's checklist with all concerns addressed. It seems really inappropriate to still have the criticisms in the main article. I think those should be addressed HERE and allow the main article to be a reflection of real benefits, real drawbacks and measurable differences between this license form and other existing forms. I think that makes for a more appropriate Wiki entry but that might just be me. Regardless, I'm going to take a stab updating this article based on Creative Commons today and move the criticisms here where they belong. I'll write that offline and wait until I'm comfortable with a final form and in the meantime give folks a chance to explain why I'm wrong before I post my changes to the article.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia image tags

Should we add templates that include the Non-Commercial (nc) and No Derivatives (nd) conditions? For example, we already have Attribution (by) and Share Alike (sa), so we need to add by-nc, by-nc-sa, by-nd, by-nc-nd. Also, should we use the SRR badge below in place of the current one? I already replaced the unprotected license pages with this badge:

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Mattderojas 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the licenses with -nc or -nd clauses are not suitable for use on wikimedia projects, so there is no point in creating templates for them ~ Bradenm 06:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are the NonCommercial licenses unsuitable for use on wikimedia projects? HEL 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Because the GNU project makes sure all of its licenses are commercially compatible, and so the GFDL clearly allows commcercial reuse, and NonCommercial licenses are thusly incompatible by definition. -- Gwern (contribs) 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Creative_Commons_Licenses - Wikipedia's policy on using CC licensed material. But I think as an article, it should at least show the icons for the licenses, while explicitly saying that Wikipedia doesn't use certain ones. New icons are also out. They can be seen here with all the different versions (which should be explained). --70.111.218.254 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Record labels?

OK ... the article has a list of "Creative Commons record labels" - how does a Creative Commons record label work? I mean ... I thought a "record label" would be in it to make money, or else all it really is is just a few musicians doing free work. --Nerd42 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait never mind sorry ... I didn't see the "Open source record label" article ... I will add a link to it to this one so no future people who aren't as wiki-savy as me will be able to find it. --Nerd42 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and disputed tag

Hdante has placed an NPOV tag on the Aims section, with a reason that the third paragraph is "NPOV and Unreferenced. ("permission culture dominant and increasingly restrictive", "... pressed hard upon society by traditional contend distributors" and "mantain their monopolies on " Does anyone know of the sources to reference the statement. I think I remember reading news articles with this idea, but I am not sure whether they are worthy of wikipedia. It does have a distinct bias that could easily be removed at the same time someone does research and provides the sources for it. Ansell 08:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the phrase is Lessig's. I'll find a source and attribute in order to regain NPOV. Deborah-jl Talk 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed

Can anyone tell me whether this would be OK, someone has given me permission to resize some original photos on Flickr which are on a NC license so are not compatible with commons. They said they are only willing to release under a share alike license if the images are limited to 300px width and height- is this all compatible with CC? Arniep 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so, you have to do as they say under the "attribution" clause. Hbdragon88 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Google donates 30,000 to CC

[1] - a worthwhile addition to the article, maybe. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Is Science Magazine violating the CC license?

Beginning on page 1914 of the September 29, 2006 edition of Science Magazine is an article by RD Fernald entitled "Casting a Genetic light on the Evolution of Eyes." See link below. This article uses four images from Wikipedia. At least one of these images (Chambered Nautilus) is available under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. See image link below.

Science Magazine provides no copy of or link to the CC License, as required by Section 4 of the CC License. Is this a violation of the CC license? See license link below.

Also, am I correct in thinking that the CC license requires that I be able to republish the Science article in any manner I choose, subject to the CC license?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/fernaldlab/rdfbib_frame.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nautilus.jpg

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode

The image does refer back to Wikipedia - but does not appear to comply with the license. It does not correctly attribute the actual author (commons:user:opencage), which they could fix by linking to the image page on wikipedia or commons. More importantly, the license is a share-alike license: you can only use the image to make other images which share the same license - which is something they're not doing if the copyright notice on the page is any indication. By the way, image "D" is correctly licensed, as it is properly attributed to the author.
While you could ask Science Magazine to re-license the image as cc-by-sa if you want, only the author has the power to actually do anything about it. Besides, for all we know, they could have asked his/her permission. --h2g2bob 17:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV check

This article reads to me like a case for Creative Commons, rather than an objective analysis of the system. This is particularly true in the Criticism section. Any other thoughts? Stack 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Other CC licenses

Because of the incompatiblity with WP, and software under GPL/LGPL/GFDL, CC has created other licenses including: Public Domain, Developing Nations, Sampling, Founder's Copyright, CC-GNU GPL, CC-GNU LGPL, Wiki, Music Sharing. [2] [3]. --70.111.218.254 17:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of these licenses are still in development and are yet to be released. Including Developing Nations, Sampling, and others. --Flying Canuck 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Provide link please. And the development should be mentioned in the article at least. --70.111.218.254 15:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA and the GFDL are so similar, and yet as of the moment, incompatible. Does anyone know whether any progress is being made towards making them more compatible?--Bjwebb (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The new CC 3.0 Licenses are out and compatibility is coming. --24.225.230.174 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of External links section

In response to the cleanup of the External links section, I copied the current list in the "Articles" section to the Creative Commons learning project page at Wikiversity. Long lists of external commentary may be more appropriate there. Feel free to deposit extranious (but relevant) links there if you think they don't belong here. • Q^#o • 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

CC Illegal?

I just removed this addition to the criticism by User:67.188.239.211, "A legal position - Some question the legality of Creative Commons Licensure". While I suspect it's true that some people do question this, I think it's phrased too broadly and it is without a reference or even details enough necessary to find one. Please feel tree to expand on this and add it back. mako (talkcontribs) 16:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Stallman's Objections

"In particular, Richard Stallman has criticised the newer licenses for not allowing the freedom to copy the work for noncommercial purposes"

I think the word here should be "commercial" rather than "noncommercial". All the licenses allow noncommercial use, but some restrict commercial usage. Or am I reading this paragraph incorrectly? Gary Steinke 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read the newer licences? For example, there is the "developing countries licence", which allows all uses in developing countries, but for outside of developing countries it does not allow redistribution (neither commercially nor non-commercially). Stallman contends that everyone should, at the least, be allowed to redistribute non-commercially, and so he does not support the new licences, and he criticises CC for not differentiating between the old licences and the new licences. Gronky 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I did not know that they had added those licenses. Gary Steinke 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Developing Nations and one sampling license have been retired. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7520 - Joi 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Lennon picture

I am across this recent addition to an article where the image, uploaded just a little while ago, was designated a Creative Commons picture by the uploader. Is there a way to verify that it is not a fair-use image instead? I'd love to AGF, but I ask because this same user changed the licensing of an earlier image from fair-use to free (which it wasn't) to bypass fair use vs. free image usage. How do I check or verify the provenance of the image? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons sued for deception

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/ - need a mention in the article? --Fredrick day 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. We'll know when the WP:DUST settles. --Gronky 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7864 The suit was dismissed. --Joi (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Free CC Blogosphere

Where can I create a free blog under CC license ?. --Mac 08:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most free blogs recognize that you as the blogger hold the copyright - thus you can release it under a CC license. You just need to figure out how to add the CC tag at the bottom of the page. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tools for discovering CC-licensed content

I checked Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org) and I can't see any way of searching for CC content. Either I'm wrong, and a more direct link or clearer explanation should be given, or this should be removed. Can someone else double-check? --Chriswaterguy talk 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)