Talk:First Orbit

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Russia: Technology & engineering / History Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Contradictory info on whether it's released under creative commons license

According to <http://www.firstorbit.org/first-orbit-faqs>, "The film First Orbit was funded and produced by The Attic Room and has been released for the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's pioneering space flight under a Creative Commons license." This is directly contradicted by <http://www.firstorbit.org/first-orbit-faqs-2>, which states "First Orbit has been released under a Creative Commons license, with some additional stipulations which you can read here. Insofar as there is any conflict between the terms of the Creative Commons licence and these terms and conditions, the latter shall take precedence." They may for all I know be legally barred under certain conditions from collecting damages over violations of their "additional terms and conditions", but to avoid reader confusion I'm going to remove all statements on Wikipedia that this is straightforwardly "licensed under creative commons". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]