Jump to content

Creative Commons: Difference between revisions

Listen to this article
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
[pending revision][pending revision]
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WIKIPEDIA NOW BELONGS TO ARLENEA MArie
Wiff&Hoos (talk | contribs)
164 edits
m Reverted 2 edits by 209.132.143.3 identified as vandalism to last revision by Luiscantero. (TW)
Line 4: Line 4:
| Non-profit_type = [[Non-profit organization]]
| Non-profit_type = [[Non-profit organization]]
| founded_date = 2001
| founded_date = 2001
| founder = [[ARLENEA MArie BALLARD]]
| founder = [[Lawrence Lessig]]
| location = [[castro valley, California]]<br/>{{USA}}
| location = [[San Francisco, California]]<br/>{{USA}}
| origins =
| origins =
| key_people =
| key_people =
Line 26: Line 26:
{{Spoken Wikipedia|En-Creative-Commons.ogg|2005-11-20}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia|En-Creative-Commons.ogg|2005-11-20}}
{{Lead too short|date=October 2009}}
{{Lead too short|date=October 2009}}
'''Creative Commons''' ('''CC''') is a [[non-profit organization]] headquartered in [[San Francisco, California]], United States devoted to expanding the range of [[creativity|creative]] works available for others to build upon legally and to share.<ref>[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ (Creative Commons FAQ)]</ref> The organization has released several [[copyright]]-[[license]]s known as [[Creative Commons licenses]] PROCESSING SERVICE FEE OF 85.00 to the public.SEND ALL PROCESSING FEES TO 22322 CENTER STREET STE.15 CASTRO VALLEY,CA.94546 AND THE PROCESSING FEE WILL BE SENT ACCORDANCE. These licenses allow creators to communicate which rights OF OTHERS [[Wikipedia]] is one of the notable web-based projects using one of its licenses.
'''Creative Commons''' ('''CC''') is a [[non-profit organization]] headquartered in [[San Francisco, California]], United States devoted to expanding the range of [[creativity|creative]] works available for others to build upon legally and to share.<ref>[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ (Creative Commons FAQ)]</ref> The organization has released several [[copyright]]-[[license]]s known as [[Creative Commons licenses]] for free to the public. These licenses allow creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they [[waive]] for the benefit of recipients or other creators. [[Wikipedia]] is one of the notable web-based projects using one of its licenses.


The organization was founded in 2001 with the generous support of the Center for the Public Domain, however first set of copyright licenses were released in December 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/about/history/|title=History of Creative Commons|accessdate=2009-11-08}}</ref>
The organization was founded in 2001 with the generous support of the Center for the Public Domain, however first set of copyright licenses were released in December 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/about/history/|title=History of Creative Commons|accessdate=2009-11-08}}</ref>


==Aim and influence==
==Aim and influence==
Creative Commons has been described as being at the forefront of the [[copyleft]] movement, which seeks to support the building of a richer [[public domain]] by providing an alternative to the automatic "all rights reserved" [[copyright]], dubbed "some rights reserved."<ref>{{cite web | first= Sharee L. | last= Broussard| title= The copyleft movement: creative commons licensing | format= | publisher= Communication Research Trends | url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7081/is_3_26/ai_n28457434?tag=content;col1 | date=September 2007}}</ref> David Berry and Giles Moss have credited Creative Commons with generating interest in the issue of [[intellectual property]] and contributing to the re-thinking of the role of the "[[commons]]" in the "[[information age]]". Beyond that, Creative Commons has provided "institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to experiment and communicate with culture more freely.
Creative Commons has been described as being at the forefront of the [[copyleft]] movement, which seeks to support the building of a richer [[public domain]] by providing an alternative to the automatic "all rights reserved" [[copyright]], dubbed "some rights reserved."<ref>{{cite web | first= Sharee L. | last= Broussard| title= The copyleft movement: creative commons licensing | format= | publisher= Communication Research Trends | url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7081/is_3_26/ai_n28457434?tag=content;col1 | date=September 2007}}</ref> David Berry and Giles Moss have credited Creative Commons with generating interest in the issue of [[intellectual property]] and contributing to the re-thinking of the role of the "[[commons]]" in the "[[information age]]". Beyond that, Creative Commons has provided "institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to experiment and communicate with culture more freely."<ref>[http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_05/commons_without_commonality/ Berry & Moss 2005]</ref>


Creative Commons works to counter what the organization considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive [[permission culture]]. According to ARLENEA MArie]], OWNER of Creative Commons, it is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past".<ref>{{cite book | first=Lawrence | last=Lessig |url=http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf |year=2004 | title=Free Culture | publisher=Penguin Press | location=New York | pages=8 |format=PDF}}</ref> Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Ermert, Monika | title=Germany debuts Creative Commons | journal=Register | year=2004| url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/15/german_creative_commons/ | doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000009 | volume=1 | pages=e9 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author=Lessig, Lawrence| year=2006| title=Lawrence Lessig on Creative Commons and the Remix Culture | format=mp3 | work=Talking with Talis | url=http://talk.talis.com/archives/2006/01/lawrence_lessig.html | accessdate=2006-04-07}}</ref>
Creative Commons works to counter what the organization considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive [[permission culture]]. According to [[Lawrence Lessig]], founder of Creative Commons, it is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past".<ref>{{cite book | first=Lawrence | last=Lessig |url=http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf |year=2004 | title=Free Culture | publisher=Penguin Press | location=New York | pages=8 |format=PDF}}</ref> Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Ermert, Monika | title=Germany debuts Creative Commons | journal=Register | year=2004| url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/15/german_creative_commons/ | doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000009 | volume=1 | pages=e9 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author=Lessig, Lawrence| year=2006| title=Lawrence Lessig on Creative Commons and the Remix Culture | format=mp3 | work=Talking with Talis | url=http://talk.talis.com/archives/2006/01/lawrence_lessig.html | accessdate=2006-04-07}}</ref>


==Governance==
==Governance==
Line 40: Line 40:


===Board===
===Board===
The current Creative Commons Board include: [[Hal Abelson]], Glenn Otis Brown, [[Michael W. Carroll]], [[Caterina Fake]], [[Davis Guggenheim]], [[Joi Ito]], [[Lawrence Lessig]], Laurie Racine, Eric Saltzman, Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, [[Jimmy Wales]], and [[Esther Wojcicki]] (Chair).<ref name="CCBoard1">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/about/people/board|title=Board of Directors - Creative Commons|accessdate=2009-09-30}}</ref>

===Technical Advisory Board===
===Technical Advisory Board===
The Technical Advisory Board includes five members: Hal Abelson, Ben Adida, Barbara Fox, Don McGovern and [[Eric Miller]]. Hal Abelson also serves on the Creative Commons Board.<ref name="CCBoard1" />
The Technical Advisory Board includes five members: Hal Abelson, Ben Adida, Barbara Fox, Don McGovern and [[Eric Miller]]. Hal Abelson also serves on the Creative Commons Board.<ref name="CCBoard1" />
Line 61: Line 63:
As of the current versions, all Creative Commons licenses allow the "core right" to redistribute a work for non-commercial purposes without modification. The NC and ND options will make a work [[Free content|non-free]].
As of the current versions, all Creative Commons licenses allow the "core right" to redistribute a work for non-commercial purposes without modification. The NC and ND options will make a work [[Free content|non-free]].


Additional options include the CC0 option, or "No Right Reserved."<ref name="CC0">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0|title=About CC0 — “No Rights Reserved”|accessdate=2009-15-11}}</ref> For [[software]], Creative Commons has three available licenses: the [[BSD License]], the CC [[GNU]] [[LGPL]] license, and the CC [[GNU]] [[GNU General Public License|GPL]].<ref name="GNU LGPL">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl|title=Creative Commons GNU LGPL|accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref name="GNU GPL">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl|title=Creative Commons GNU GPL|accessdate=2009-15-11}}</ref>
Additional options include the CC0 option, or "No Right Reserved."<ref name="CC0">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0|title=About CC0 — “No Rights Reserved”|accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> For [[software]], Creative Commons has three available licenses: the [[BSD License]], the CC [[GNU]] [[LGPL]] license, and the CC [[GNU]] [[GNU General Public License|GPL]].<ref name="GNU LGPL">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl|title=Creative Commons GNU LGPL|accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref name="GNU GPL">{{cite web|url=http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl|title=Creative Commons GNU GPL|accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>


==Usage of Creative Commons licenses==
==Usage of Creative Commons licenses==
Line 92: Line 94:
|work = FAQ
|work = FAQ
|publisher = Creative Commons
|publisher = Creative Commons
|accessdate = 11,15,2009
|accessdate = 16 Sep 2009
}}</ref><ref name="CC-by-sa/3.0" >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref><ref name="CC-by-nc-sa/3.0" >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/</ref> Pro-[[copyright]] commentators from within the [[content industry]] argue either that Creative Commons is not useful, or that it undermines copyright.<ref>[http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012209ascap ASCAP Targets "Copyleft / Free Culture" Enemy...]</ref><ref>[http://ascap.com/playback/2007/fall/features/creative_commons_licensing.aspx 10 Things Every Music Creator Should Know About Creative Commons Licensing]</ref>
}}</ref><ref name="CC-by-sa/3.0" >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref><ref name="CC-by-nc-sa/3.0" >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/</ref> Pro-[[copyright]] commentators from within the [[content industry]] argue either that Creative Commons is not useful, or that it undermines copyright.<ref>[http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012209ascap ASCAP Targets "Copyleft / Free Culture" Enemy...]</ref><ref>[http://ascap.com/playback/2007/fall/features/creative_commons_licensing.aspx 10 Things Every Music Creator Should Know About Creative Commons Licensing]</ref>


Line 121: Line 123:


=== Free Software Foundation ===
=== Free Software Foundation ===
The [[Free Software Foundation]] accepts the CC-BY v2.0 and the CC-BY-SA v2.0 Creative Commons licenses as being free, though not recommending it for [[software]], but explains that it is vital to avoid the problem with the overly vague statement "I use ''a'' Creative Commons license" , without noting the actual license.<ref>{{cite web
⚫
FREE SOFTWARE NOT ANYMORE}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
|title=Licenses for works other than software and documentation
|publisher=[[FSF]]
⚫
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript#q40-creative-commons
|url=http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript#q40-creative-commons
|title=Stallman explains his stance in Brazil, 2006
|title=Stallman explains his stance in Brazil, 2006

Revision as of 22:38, 16 November 2009

Creative Commons
Founded2001
FounderLawrence Lessig
TypeNon-profit organization
FocusExpansion of "reasonable", flexible copyright
Location
MethodCreative Commons licenses
Websitehttp://creativecommons.org/
Listen to this article
(2 parts, 7 minutes)
  2. Part 2
Spoken Wikipedia icon
These audio files were created from a revision of this article dated
Error: no date provided
, and do not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help · More spoken articles)

Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.[1] The organization has released several copyright-licenses known as Creative Commons licenses for free to the public. These licenses allow creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of recipients or other creators. Wikipedia is one of the notable web-based projects using one of its licenses.

The organization was founded in 2001 with the generous support of the Center for the Public Domain, however first set of copyright licenses were released in December 2002.[2]

Aim and influence

Creative Commons has been described as being at the forefront of the copyleft movement, which seeks to support the building of a richer public domain by providing an alternative to the automatic "all rights reserved" copyright, dubbed "some rights reserved."[3] David Berry and Giles Moss have credited Creative Commons with generating interest in the issue of intellectual property and contributing to the re-thinking of the role of the "commons" in the "information age". Beyond that, Creative Commons has provided "institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to experiment and communicate with culture more freely."[4]

Creative Commons works to counter what the organization considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture. According to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, it is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past".[5] Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions.[6][7]

Governance

Creative Commons Japan Seminar, Tokyo 2007

The current CEO of Creative Commons is Joi Ito[8]. Mike Linksvayer is vice president, John Wilbanks is vice president of science, and Ahrash Bissell is the Executive Director of ccLearn.[8]

Board

The current Creative Commons Board include: Hal Abelson, Glenn Otis Brown, Michael W. Carroll, Caterina Fake, Davis Guggenheim, Joi Ito, Lawrence Lessig, Laurie Racine, Eric Saltzman, Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, Jimmy Wales, and Esther Wojcicki (Chair).[9]

Technical Advisory Board

The Technical Advisory Board includes five members: Hal Abelson, Ben Adida, Barbara Fox, Don McGovern and Eric Miller. Hal Abelson also serves on the Creative Commons Board.[9]

Audit Committee

Creative Commons also has an Audit Committee, with two members: Molly Shaffer Van Houweling and Lawrence Lessig. Both serve on the Creative Commons Board.[9]

Types of Creative Commons licenses

Mayer and Bettle explain what Creative Commons is.
Main article: Creative Commons licenses

There are six major licenses of the Creative Commons:[10]

  • Attribution (CC-BY)
  • Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA)
  • Attribution No Derivatives (CC-BY-ND)
  • Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC)
  • Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA)
  • Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND)

There are four major conditions of the Creative Commons: Attribution (BY), requiring attribution to the original author; Share Alike (SA), allowing derivative works under the same or a similar license (later or jurisdiction version); Non-Commercial (NC), requiring the work is not used for commercial purposes; and No Derivative Works (ND), allowing only the original work, with out derivatives.[10]

As of the current versions, all Creative Commons licenses allow the "core right" to redistribute a work for non-commercial purposes without modification. The NC and ND options will make a work non-free.

Additional options include the CC0 option, or "No Right Reserved."[11] For software, Creative Commons has three available licenses: the BSD License, the CC GNU LGPL license, and the CC GNU GPL.[12][13]

Usage of Creative Commons licenses

Main article: List of projects using Creative Commons licenses

Creative Commons is maintaining a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses.[14] On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world.[15] CC licensed content can also be accessed through a number of content directories and search engines (see CC licensed content directories).

On January 13, 2009, some broadcasting content from Al Jazeera on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict was released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.[16][17][18][19][20][21]

Creative Commons International

Main article: Creative Commons International

The original non-localized Creative Commons licenses were written with the U.S. legal system in mind, so the wording could be incompatible within different local legislations and render the licenses unenforceable in various jurisdictions. To address this issue, Creative Commons International has started to port the various licenses to accommodate local copyright and private law. As of December 2008, there are 50 jurisdiction-specific licenses, with 8 other jurisdictions in drafting process, and more countries joining the worldwide project.[22]

Criticism

Matteo Pasquinelli (2008) describes two fronts of criticism: "those who claim the institution of a real commonality against Creative Commons restrictions (non-commercial, share-alike, etc.)[clarification needed] and those who point out Creative Commons complicity with global capitalism".[clarification needed] Pasquinelli specifically criticises Creative Commons for not establishing "productive commons".[clarification needed][23]

Critics have also argued that Creative Commons worsens license proliferation, by providing multiple licenses that are incompatible.[24] Most notably 'attribution-sharealike' and 'attribution-noncommercial-sharealike' are incompatible, meaning that works under these licenses cannot be combined in a derivative work without obtaining permission from the license-holder.[25][26][27] Pro-copyright commentators from within the content industry argue either that Creative Commons is not useful, or that it undermines copyright.[28][29]

Some within the copyleft movement point out that some people confuse ShareAlike with copyleft, and remind that only the Attribution-ShareAlike license is actually a copyleft license[30] and that there is no standard of freedom between Creative Commons licenses (as there is, for example, within the free software and open source movements).[24] An effort within the movement to define a standard of freedom has resulted in the Definition of Free Cultural Works.[31] In February 2008, Creative Commons recognized the definition and added an "Approved for Free Cultural Works" badge to its two Creative Commons licenses which comply—Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike.[32]

Debian

The maintainers of Debian, a GNU and Linux distribution known for its rigid adherence to a particular definition of software freedom, do not believe that even the Creative Commons Attribution License, the least restrictive of the licenses, adheres to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) due to the license's anti-DRM provisions (which could restrict private redistribution to some extent) and its requirement in section 4a that downstream users remove an author's credit upon request from the author.[33]

As the other licenses are identical to the Creative Commons Attribution License with further restrictions, Debian considers them non-free for the same reasons. There have been efforts to remove these problems in the new version 3.0 licenses, so they can be compatible with the DFSG.[34] In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered to be compatible to the DFSG.[35]

Free Software Foundation

The Free Software Foundation accepts the CC-BY v2.0 and the CC-BY-SA v2.0 Creative Commons licenses as being free, though not recommending it for software, but explains that it is vital to avoid the problem with the overly vague statement "I use a Creative Commons license" , without noting the actual license.[36][37] Richard Stallman has criticised particular licenses for not allowing the freedom to make verbatim copies of the work for noncommercial purposes, and said that he no longer supported Creative Commons as an organisation, as the licenses no longer had this freedom in common.[38] Creative Commons have since retired these licenses, and no longer recommends their use,[39] and in recent times the FSF and CC organisations have regained confidence in one another, as is shown by the GFDL v1.3, which allows wikis such as Wikipedia to transfer to the CC-BY-SA v3.0 license.[40]

Recent issues affecting reusers

License changes

A problem affecting fewer public hosting sites (if not only Flickr) is that, for example, Flickr allows uploaders to change licenses, but there is no publicly visible history of such license changes. An image copy may be freely licensed at one point, but later be switched to a more restrictive license or to "all rights reserved" – note though that the previous license cannot be retracted, if the work is used or uploaded elsewhere (e.g. to Wikimedia Commons) while under a free license[citation needed].

Flickr images uploaded to the Commons are, therefore, reviewed automatically by a piece of software here at the Commons which runs autonomously. If that software finds that the image is still freely licensed at Flickr, it records that fact at our Image description page. Trusted users (admins and community approved users) may also review Flickr licenses manually.

If the Flickr license changes after a successful review, the image may be kept at the Commons because free licenses cannot be retracted.

Furthermore, copyright holder of the registered copyrighted works can game the CC system by withdrawing CC licenses and erase evidence of the issuing such licenses, then sue people who use the copyrighted works.[41] (if exposed this would be barred under estoppel) One recent development in response to this problem has been the launch of the ImageStamper website.[42] ImageStamper keeps dated, independently verified copies of license conditions associated with creative commons images on behalf of its users.[43] The site is currently being extended to support other media types.

Incorrect licensing

There is a serious problem in that a user of a photo sharing website can upload a copyrighted image and incorrectly give it a Creative Commons license. If other users download and re-use the image, then the original copyright holder can sue.[44][45][46] On Google's 'Usage Rights' help page it warns people of the legal seriousness of using Creative Commons licensed media when they say to "verify that its license is legitimate" on every occasion, as they do not make "any representation that the content is actually or lawfully licensed".[47] It appears that many people are either not aware of, or oblivious to, the possibility of non-legitimate licensing and think they are okay using whatever Creative Commons licensed media they find with absolutely no consequences, "I use photos from Flickr with the Creative Commons license. As long as I give attribution to the appropriate photos; I'm in the clear."[48][49][50]

Therefore, careful evaluation is needed before re-using an image from a photo sharing website.[51]

It is worth considering avoiding pictures where potentially there is a large commercial organization (for example the National Football League or football club) that would be really upset if it was decided that one would make for example, a new football sticker book with pictures of footballers used because the images had been labeled with 'Creative Commons commercial use allowed.' This is because large organizations usually have the time, money and resources to launch a legal challenge. The cost of using the non-legitimate image would therefore not be free as first thought but very expensive[44] and could have serious repercussions. People should also be aware of using CC media containing branding, logos, or images of people wearing such items.

The winner of Creative Commons licenses is perhaps the small to medium-sized business sector where smaller, local advertising campaigns are used rather than mass market media campaigns. This is because when there is a problem with the media used (e.g. due to a person not giving their permission to use their image such as in the Virgin Mobile (Legal Cases) section below) the media owner(s) might decide to take their actions further and perhaps go to their local court of law - only to find that the local court doesn't have any jurisdiction (like in the Virgin Mobile case). In order to take the matter further, they would have to mount a full legal challenge, perhaps going to their country's highest court of law - or even in international courts. Such a process could potentially cost media owners hundreds of thousands of pounds (dollars) and may not be successful. Even if successful, they may stand to gain an unsubstantial amount in settlement so they would be unlikely to challenge legally.

Finally it is worth noting that these problems apply to stock photography organizations as well, anyone who successfully registers can contribute to their image libraries.

Dutch Tabloid

A Creative Commons license was first tested in court in early 2006, when podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos without permission from his Flickr page. The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. While the verdict was in favour of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as long as they did not repeat the offense. An analysis of the decision states, "The Dutch Court’s decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and bind users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license."[52]

Virgin Mobile

In 2007, Virgin Mobile launched a bus stop ad campaign promoting their cellphone text messaging service using the work of amateur photographers who uploaded their work to Flickr using a Creative Commons-by (Attribution) license. Users licensing their images this way freed their work for use by any other entity, as long as the original creator was attributed credit, without any other compensation required. Virgin upheld this single restriction by printing a URL leading to the photographer's Flickr page on each of their ads. However, one picture, depicting 15 year-old Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church,[53] caused some controversy when she sued Virgin Mobile. The photo was taken by Alison's church youth counselor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license.[53] In 2008, the case was thrown out of court for lack of jurisdiction meaning Virgin Mobile were not liable for any accountability or subsequent damages.[54]

CC-Music - Spanish Court (2006)

The issue in this case was not whether the CC license was enforceable, but instead whether the major collecting society in Spain could collect royalties from a bar that played CC-licensed music.[55]

List of projects that release contents under Creative Commons licenses

See also

Citations

  1. ^ (Creative Commons FAQ)
  2. ^ "History of Creative Commons". Retrieved 2009-11-08.
  3. ^ Broussard, Sharee L. (September 2007). "The copyleft movement: creative commons licensing". Communication Research Trends.
  4. ^ Berry & Moss 2005
  5. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture (PDF). New York: Penguin Press. p. 8.
  6. ^ Ermert, Monika (2004). "Germany debuts Creative Commons". Register. 1: e9. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000009.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  7. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (2006). "Lawrence Lessig on Creative Commons and the Remix Culture" (mp3). Talking with Talis. Retrieved 2006-04-07.
  8. ^ a b "People - Creative Commons". Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  9. ^ a b c "Board of Directors - Creative Commons". Retrieved 2009-09-30.
  10. ^ a b "Licenses - Creative Commons". Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  11. ^ "About CC0 — "No Rights Reserved"". Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  12. ^ "Creative Commons GNU LGPL". Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  13. ^ "Creative Commons GNU GPL". Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  14. ^ "Content Directories". creativecommons.org. Retrieved 2009-04-24.
  15. ^ Creative Commons Case Studies
  16. ^ Benenson, Fred (2009-01-13). "Al Jazeera Launches Creative Commons Repository". creativecommons.org. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
  17. ^ Steuer, Eric (2009-01-13). "Al Jazeera Announces Launch of Free Footage Under Creative Commons License". creativecommons.org. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
  18. ^ Cohen, Noam (2009-01-11). "Al Jazeera provides an inside look at Gaza conflict". Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
  19. ^ "Al Jazeera Announces Launch of Free Footage under Creative Commons License". Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
  20. ^ Andrews, Robert (2009-11-14). "Al Jazeera Offers Creative Commons Video, Lessig Lends Backing". paidcontent.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
  21. ^ Ito, Joi (2009-01-14). "Al Jazeera Launches Creative Commons Repository". joi.ito.com. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
  22. ^ project
  23. ^ Pasquinelli, Matteo. "Animal Spirits: A Bestiary of the Commons", Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2008
  24. ^ a b Benjamin Mako Hill (29 Jul 2005). "Towards a Standard of Freedom: Creative Commons and the Free Software Movement".
  25. ^ "Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?". FAQ. Creative Commons. Retrieved 16 Sep 2009.
  26. ^ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
  27. ^ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
  28. ^ ASCAP Targets "Copyleft / Free Culture" Enemy...
  29. ^ 10 Things Every Music Creator Should Know About Creative Commons Licensing
  30. ^ [1]
  31. ^ Definition of Free Cultural Works
  32. ^ Approved for Free Cultural Works
  33. ^ Evan Prodromou (3 April 2005). "Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses". debian-legal (mailing list).
  34. ^ Garlick, Mia (2007-02-23). "Version 3.0 Launched". Creative Commons. Retrieved 2007-07-05.
  35. ^ "The DFSG and Software Licenses - Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0". Debian Wiki. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
  36. ^ "Licenses for works other than software and documentation". FSF.
  37. ^ "Stallman explains his stance in Brazil, 2006".
  38. ^ "Free Software Foundation blog".
  39. ^ "Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license". Creative Commons.
  40. ^ GFDL 1.3 FAQ
  41. ^ Gaming the Creative Commons for Profit
  42. ^ ImageStamper
  43. ^ Creative Commons News: ImageStamper
  44. ^ a b http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/news.phtml/25685/google-images-creative-commons-search-major-problems.phtml#
  45. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/16/creative_commons_fail/
  46. ^ http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/find-creative-commons-images-with-image.html
  47. ^ http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=29508
  48. ^ http://www.flyteblog.com/flyte/web_marketing/
  49. ^ http://copyrightfriendly.wikispaces.com/
  50. ^ http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/04/30/30-creative-commons-sources/
  51. ^ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FLICKRVIO#Flickrwashing:_is_the_work_original_with_the_uploader.2C_or_a_copyright_violation.3F
  52. ^ "Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court". Groklaw. 2006-03-16. Retrieved 2006-09-02.
  53. ^ a b "Use My Photo? Not Without Permission". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-25. One moment, Alison Chang, a 15-year-old student from Dallas, is cheerfully goofing around at a local church-sponsored car wash, posing with a friend for a photo. Weeks later, that photo is posted online and catches the eye of an ad agency in Australia, and the altered image of Alison appears on a billboard in Adelaide as part of a Virgin Mobile advertising campaign. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  54. ^ http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/
  55. ^ http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5830

References

Wikiquote has quotations related to Creative Commons.
Wikisource has several original texts related to Creative Commons.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Creative Commons.
Wikiversity has learning resources about Creative Commons
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons&oldid=326239488"