You can easily give your works an express license by attaching a Creative Commons license to the materials you post online. It's easy and it sends the message that you want your materials to be part of the flow of creativity. No one creates in a vacuum. Just as you build on others' works, others will build on yours.

81 View upvote and downvote totals. This answer is not useful Save this answer. Show activity on this post. Most people are focused on attribution (and rightfully so), but it seems that not much attention is being paid to the share alike part of the CC license. In AI contexts, copyright law is still being tested in court and many things are uncertain. There is a very real risk that training an AI on this site's data will not necessarily be considered "fair use" (it fails the "serves as a substitute for the original" test, among other things), which means there's a risk that the trained model will be considered a derivative work and thus required to carry a license similar to CC-BY-SA 4.0.

We contributed free work to the company because the content is under a CC BY-SA license. It is fine to make money off our content as long as they adhere to the license. This forbids selling the content to OpenAI, though, since they do not provide attribution or release their derivative works under a compatible license.

🌟 Highlight words as they are spoken (karaoke anybody?). 🌟 Navigate video by clicking on words. 🌟 Share snippets of text (with video attached!). 🌟 Repurpose by remixing using the text as a base and reference.

Include a CC0 or CC-BY statement in the data (including MARC records) you create. Here’s an example from theUniversity of Florida:588 _ _ $a This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 “No Rights Reserved”license. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to itworldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.

Nate Angell as our new Director of Communications and Community.

Creative Commons

We start with a historical perspective, keeping in mind that history itself is a common even when it reveals the ways in which we have been divided, if it is narrated through a multiplicity of voices. History is our collective memory, our extended body connecting us to a vast world of struggles that give meaning and power to our political practice.

So far Maine lobster fishers have been considered a harmless exception confirming the neoliberal rule that a commons can survive only in special and limited circumstances. Viewed through the lens of class struggle, however, the Maine lobster common has elements of an anti-capitalist common in that it involves workers' control of some of the important decisions concerning the work process and its outcomes. This experience then constitutes an invaluable training, providing examples of how large-scale commons can operate. At the same time, the fate of the lobster commons is still determined by the international seafood market in which they are embedded. If the US market collapses or the state allows off-shore oil drilling in the Gulf of Maine, they will be dissolved. The Maine lobster commons, then, cannot be a model for us.

Rajiv reminded us that: “Openness can be leveraged for justice, but it can also do harm. Closed practices can also do harm, but there are times when closed is the empowered choice. Choice is key. We must serve justice, rather than merely being open.”

Rajiv cited an example highlighted by tara robertson of an instance where openness raised troubling ethical issues.  When the lesbian porn magazine On Our Backs was digitised and released under CC BY licence, women who had modelled for the magazine felt that work they had created for their own community had been appropriated for uses they had never intended and did not consent to. 

We are are continuing our commitment to creating our games that are free and widely accessible anyone that is curious by making our game files available under Creative Commons license BY–NC–SA 4.0. That means we will continue offering a full, free print-and-play kit for Pax Pamir, and later this campaign, John Company! Anyone can use, remix, and share the game, so long as they do not use it for commercial purposes. 

I decided I'd make my content available with a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution, Non-commercial, Share Alike) license, so that people could freely use and adapt my stuff, but would need to cite me as its source, make their content that was based on my work available for free, and slap a similar license on it. This is important, I think, to prevent the materials that educators make and contribute freely to the community STAY FREE. Without these stipulations (NC and SA), it would be possible for a commercial textbook company, for example, to grab the content I've created and add it to their "walled garden" of content which is technically free, but requires an expensive subscription to GET TO. This is a subversion of the Open idea which a lot of commercial publishers have tried, to reduce their cost of content and make themselves seem hip and up to date. The community calls it Openwashing.

Creative Commons certification course

Emerald

However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S,

And because we know many different types of audiences—including those we don’t know about!—will be interested in our work, we encourage you to freely republish our work under the terms of our Creative Commons license. 

Lawrence Lessig, Hal Abelson, and Eric Eldred received funding to establish a new non-profit called Creative Commons

Additional Resources

More information about CC and open licensing

To read all of the license deeds, or legal codes, visit this site and explore the different licenses. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Do Creative Commons licenses affect exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use?

e-purpose.

New rules always create confusion but that is not a strong argument against them. The legal complexities of CC reflect the complexity of copyright. That the CC licenses are being used suggests that they are useful. The question is how? Claiming they are not useful is unlikely to be correct. Perhaps the usefulness is social not individual, so people are using them to do good. I take no position on this.

Why, when we are so worried about preserving freedoms, do we prohibit choice on the part of downstream users as to how they can license derivatives works they make? Why don’t we want to protect that user’s freedom to choose how to license his derivative work, into which he put substantial effort? The copyleft approach of both the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons makes creators of derivative works second-class citizens. And these are the people we claim to be primarily interested in empowering. I can’t stress this point enough: the ShareAlike clause of the CC licenses and the CopyLeft tack of the GFDL rob derivers of the basic freedom to choose which license they will apply to their derived work. ShareAlike and CopyLeft privilege creators while directing derivers to the back of the bus.

Today, I had the privilege of speaking on a panel at the Comparative and International Education Society’s Annual Conference with representatives of two open education projects that depend on Creative Commons licenses to do their work. One is the OER publisher Siyavula, based in Cape Town, South Africa. Among other things, they publish textbooks for use in primary and secondary school in math and science. After high school students in the country protested about the conditions of their education – singling out textbook prices as a barrier to their learning – the South African government relied on the Creative Commons license used by Siyavula to print and distribute 10 million Siyavula textbooks to school children, some of whom had never had their own textbook before. The other are the related teacher education projects, TESSA, and TESS-India, which use the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license on teacher training materials. Created first in English, the projects and their teachers rely on the reuse rights granted by the Creative Commons license to translate and localize these training materials to make them authentic for teachers in the linguistically and culturally diverse settings of sub-Saharan Africa and India. (Both projects are linked to and supported by the Open University in the UK, http://www.open.ac.uk/, which uses Creative Commons-licensed materials as well.) If one wakes up hoping to feel that one’s work in the world is useful, then an experience like this makes it a good day.

User rights Every CC licence allows you to: Copy the work (eg. download, upload, photocopy and scan the work); Distribute the work (eg. provide copies of the work to teachers, students, parents and the community); Display or perform the work (eg. play a sound recording or film in class, or stage a play to parents); Communicate the work (eg. make the work available online on the school intranet, learning management system or on a class blog); and Format shift verbatim copies of the work (eg copy a MP3 version of music onto a CD or an MP4 version of a film onto a DVD to play in class). Source: Adapted from 'Baseline Rights'  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Baseline_Rights   Some CC licences also let you make other uses, however these are the base user rights provided for all CC material. User obligations When you use any CC material, you must: always attribute the creator of the work (for information on how to attribute a work, see information guide, ‘How to Attribute Creative Commons Material’); get permission from the creator to do anything that goes beyond the terms of the licence (e.g. making a commercial use of the work or creating a derivative work where the licence does not permit this); keep any copyright notice attached to the work intact on all copies of the work; indicate and link to the licence from any copies of the work; and where you make changes to the work, acknowledge the original work and indicate that changes have been made (eg by stating ‘This is a French translation of the original work, X’).   In addition, when you use any CC material, you must not:  alter the terms of the licence; use the work in any way that is prejudicial to the reputation of the creator of the work; imply that the creator is endorsing or sponsoring you or your work; or add any technologies (such as digital rights management) to the work that restrict other people from using it under the terms of the licence. Source:  Adapted from 'Baseline Rights'  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Baseline_Rights 

That said, for a thoughtful survey of how the commons, cultural and otherwise, might thrive inside of, or along with, with current conditions I recommend Peter Barnes’s book, Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. One of Barnes’s points is that our debates about the future often imagine only two actors: the government and private business. Barnes suggests a third set, common property trusts (as, for example, the kind of land trusts devised by the Nature Conservancy). There is much to say about common property trusts but for now the point is simply that we already have a mix of cultural modes and should continue to have them going forward with, I hope, the commons recognized and strengthened.

The author has made an online version of this work available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License. It can be accessed through the author’s website at http://www.twitterandteargas.com.

3 Steps for Licensing Your 3d Printed Stuff by Michael Weinberg. CC BY-SA 3.0 A set of instructions for how to license 3d printed materials https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf

What happens if I offer my material under a Creative Commons license and someone misuses them? https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-happens-if-i-offer-my-material-under-a-creative-commons-license-and-someone-misuses-them

I also think as educators we should own what we make, or at least have it released to the Commons. Copyright on teacher created materials in the public school makes little sense. Nobody wants to steal your stuff and no municipality will ever profit on sales. Give it an open license.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

For creative professionals, however, particularly those burdened by economic hardship, the risks associated with transitioning to a non-proprietary business model can feel (rightly or wrongly) prohibitive.

publish works containing parts covered by different licenses

Arguingthatthedebate(orbattle)overcopyrightinthe1990swasbeingincreasinglypolarizedinto‘allrightsreserved’versus‘norightsreserved’extremes,LessigandhiscolleaguesfoundedtheCreativeCommonsconventionin2002toenabledigitalcreatorstomaintaincertainrightsfortheirintellectuallabourwhileprovidingitsdisseminationandcirculation.[75]Whileithasitscritics(whoarguethatitreproducestheflawsofcopyrightlaws),CreativeCommonsisaningeniousconventionthatruptures(resignifiesradically)acopyrightconventionandprovidesvariousactionsbywhichacreatorisabletospecifyrightsthatshewantstoretain

For #OpenEducationWk Take a CC Certification Unit for a Test Drive

This is all great, but here's the annoying thing: it should be totally unnecessary. These are digitizations of public domain works, and there's no reasonable basis for granting them any copyright protection that would need to be divested with a CC0 mark in the first place. They are not creative transformative works, and in fact they are the opposite: attempts to capture the original as faithfully and accurately as possible, with no detectable changes in the transfer from one medium to another. It might take a lot of work, but sweat of the brow does not establish copyright, and allowing such images to be re-copyrighted (in some cases hundreds or even thousands of years after their original creation) would be pointless and disastrous.

Why should I adopt an open textbook?

How can educators find and use OER in their classrooms?

especter les dispositifs réglementaires et adhérer à l'utilisation des licences Créative Commons

We need to talk about sharing