Forum Moderators: not2easy
Today there is an article in the Guardian - Online [guardian.co.uk] that says that the new copyright licences will be available in the UK as of 01 November.
The BBC [news.bbc.co.uk] ran a story 3-weeks ago on the topic and is a major proponent of the concept.
That digital media has very significant copyright differences and concerns from traditional media is apparent (to me if not the RIAA and clones).
My search of WebmasterWorld turned up a couple of (very limited) threads that I vaguely remember reading at the time but no real discussion of the value/use of the concept.
It is rare for WebmasterWorld to be "behind the curve" and with copyright being a major issue in this the Content, Writing and Copyright Forum I am surprised at the lack of mention.
Has anyone had experience with Creative Commons copyright licences?
Do you think they are here to stay or just a passing fancy?
Merely because a lawyer is there one does not have to go via them to contact the artist ...
This actually appears to be condoning stealing ..I can hear the comments in the future of ( in similar way to the arguments concerning google cache and robots text ) of "well if you werent registered" with "creative commons" you "should have been" so "in default we can use your material"...
I see no need to "play with laws" merely to placate the dishonest ...
It is interesting to note that the proponents of this are either publishers and not or in the case of some no longer purely creators ...Ie the BBC whilst I adore it is not the creator ..it is the publisher of others work ..likewsise the Guardian and O'reilly ...The others in the music industry appear to be mainly remixers or their friends .....
As a mainly visual artist ..I prefer that it is I who decides who can reuse my original work ..and not the gallery owner , magazine publisher , tv producer , website owner , or law professor...and in matters of copyright the American application of the law was allways severely lacking in protection of the "artist" ( if the "artist" was not rich and famous already )..the UK model and it's application was infinitely preferable...
I could not make any sense at all what you are talking about.
The CCL is a *license*. It is in no way a change in copyright law.
Copyright law will be the same on Novenber 1 as it is on October 31.
Copyright grants you certain exclusive privleges, and you can then grant those privleges to others with a license. If the other party does not accept the license, then all reverts back to copyright law.
And the licenses certainly do apply to works other than music. There is a huge mass of text works that have been released under CCL.
And the CCL has been available for quite a while for UK copyright holders. All that is different is that there will be a version specifically tailored to UK laws.
The general US one would probably stand up in most other countries just as the GPL has, because it is the *only* thing granting redistrobution rights, because if you do not agree with the terms, it reverts back to copyright law which you will then be in violation of.
At no time are you ever forced to use a CCL, and if there is no machine readable copy of the CCL in a digital work, the assumption would be "normal copyright"
iamlost,
I think it is a misnomer to call it a "Creative Commons copyright License". Lose the "copyright" part of that because it will cause confusion like that of Leosghost. It is in no way a part of copyright law.
And yes, it is here to stay, because many works are already releases under the CCL and the rights holders cannot take that back.
The digital part of it may or may not work out all that well, only time will tell, but the licenses themselves are only gaining in popularity.
