50 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2023
    1. Recommended Resource

      Since Unit 4 mentions some CC license infringement cases as examples, I recommend adding a court case from the Netherlands of a photographer suing a website for using their photo without permission or compensation. The name of the court case is below.

      ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:5887

      The court case ended with the judge awarding the photographer (plaintiff) the following damages (excerpt is from the court case records).

      "5.4. orders [defendant] to pay to [plaintiff] against proof of discharge:

      € 450.00 in damages, increased by the statutory interest as referred to in Article 6:119 of the Dutch Civil Code, with effect from 11 June 2021 until the day of full payment,

      € 67.50 in extrajudicial collection costs,

      5.5. orders [defendant] to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [plaintiff], estimated at € 2,036.30 until the judgment of this judgment, of which € 1,702.00 in salary for the authorized representative."

      This case demonstrates the enforceability of the CC license in other countries, such as the Netherlands.

    1. Recommended Resource

      I recommend adding the webpage "Open Access in Australia" on Wikiwand that documents Australia's history for accepting and promoting open access and open publication in its country.

      The site contains a timeline that documents key years in which the open movement, open access, open government, and open data concepts were introduced. The year that CC Australia was established is included in the timeline.

  2. Nov 2022
  3. Oct 2022
    1. 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.

      Sample MARC 588 CC0 statement from University of Florida

  4. May 2022
    1. Nate Angell as our new Director of Communications and Community.

      Congratulations Nate! I'm sure Hypothes.is will miss you desperately, but Creative Commons will be all the better for your work and contribution.

      https://creativecommons.org/2022/05/03/cc-welcomes-nate-angell/

  5. Jan 2022
  6. Aug 2021
    1. Creative Commons

      “Creative Commons es una organización que permite a la gente publicar sus obras creativas bajo una licencia que permite más flexibilidad que el <<todos los derechos reservados>> que viene por defecto en las leyes sobre derecho de autor". (Merritt, 2005)

    2. 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.

      Estoy de acuerdo con el compromiso que tiene un autor por compartir la información de sus contenidos en beneficio de una comunidad que se puede educar con base a las necesidades de su receptor, demostrando que, sin la necesidad de condicionar económicamente a los involucrados, se puede transformar favorablemente la organización social de las reproducciones.

    3. 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.

      Mientras que Caffentzis y Federici plantean Creative Commons “anticapitalistas”, el teórico investigador belga, especializado en la tecnología, cultura e innovación en los negocios Michel Bauwens afirma que “la propiedad entre iguales es una forma postcapitalista porque no es excluyente y crea un patrimonio común con costes marginales de reproducción” (Sonvilla, 2012, p. 28), dando a entender que el intercambio individual de la expresión creativa determina el nivel en que se comparte y, en cambio, se puede optar por una ‘General Public License’ (Licencia Pública General), la cual exige que todo aporte que genere un cambio en lo común, también pertenece a todos. Referencia

  7. Apr 2021
    1. 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.”
    2. 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. 

      It can be important when opening content up, especially at higher corporate levels, to take into account future uses of material that might not have been forseen when they were created. This may be especially important with the use of algorithms.

    1. 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. 
  8. Mar 2021
    1. 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.

      A good description of openwashing. I've seen some examples of the practice in the wild, but should make a note to document some.

    2. Creative Commons certification course

      Creative Commons Certificate

      The Certificate is an in-depth course about CC licenses, open practices and the ethos of the Commons. The course is composed of readings, quizzes, discussions, and practical exercises to develop learners’ open skills. We provide personalized engagement with expert facilitators and copyright lawyers in the field, and offer a 1:25 (max) ratio of facilitators to course participants.

  9. Feb 2021
    1. Emerald

      https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/open-research-emerald/our-open-research-policies

      Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.

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

      The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

      Academy of Dental Materials

      Acoustical Society of America

      AIP Publishing

      American Academy of Ophthalmology

      American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

      American Chemical Society

      American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

      American Medical Association

      American Physical Society

      American Society for Investigative Pathology

      American Society for Radiation Oncology

      American Society of Civil Engineers

      American Society of Hematology

      American Society of Clinical Oncology

      American Association of Physicists in Medicine

      American Association of Physics Teachers

      AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

      Brill

      British Journal of Anaesthesia

      Budrich Academic Press

      Cambridge Media

      Cambridge University Press

      Canadian Cardiovascular Society

      De Gruyter

      Duncker & Humblot

      Elsevier

      Emerald

      Erich Schmidt Verlag

      French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

      Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

      Future Science Group 

      Hogrefe

      International Association for Gondwana Research

      IOP Publishing

      Journal of Nursing Regulation

      Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

      Julius Klinkhardt KG

      La Découverte

      Laser Institute America

      Materials Research Forum LLC

      The Optical Society (OSA)

      Pearson Benelux

      SAGE Publishing

      Society of Rheology

      Springer Nature

      Taylor & Francis Group

      The Geological Society of America

      Thieme Group

      Uitgeverij Verloren

      Verlag Barbara Budrich

      Vittorio Klostermann

      wbv Media

      Wiley

      Wolters Kluwer

  10. Nov 2020
    1. 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. 

      Cool to see a journalistic enterprise publishing under a Creative Commons license.

      Also sort of fun to see a tiny bit of a Kicks Condor design ethic baked into their website. Naturally it's a tad bit more buttoned up, but that's to be expected I suppose.

  11. Oct 2020
  12. Sep 2020
    1. Lawrence Lessig, Hal Abelson, and Eric Eldred received funding to establish a new non-profit called Creative Commons

      CC Creative Commons

  13. Aug 2020
    1. Additional Resources

      I suggest an additional section titled tools. These tools really helped me in gaining a better understanding of structuring attributions etc.

      The Attribution Builder is really helpful when there is uncertainty as to how to proceed with citing sources, especially as citing CC Licenses seems different from scholarly practices.

      1. Open Attribution Builder, by WA SBCTC, [n.d.]. The Open Attribution Builder is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
      2. CC “Select your License” tool logic - Beta version, by Wyblib40, 2020. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. (Please note that this workflow logic diagram I created myself in order to get a feel for the new License Chooser tool (2020)

      CC “Select your License” tool logic - Beta version

  14. Apr 2020
    1. To read all of the license deeds, or legal codes, visit this site and explore the different licenses. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

      An excellent resource directly from the Creative Commons site describing the rationale of use, "three-layer" design, license types, and their specific permissions/restrictions. This is a go-to resource before and after completing this course. There is no better documentation for this topic on the internet.

  15. Mar 2020
    1. Do Creative Commons licenses affect exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use?

      This question is such a common one. I don't think most people understand that Creative Commons doesn't replace copyright. At my institution most people seem to think that it's either one or the other and if it is licensed under creative commons, that it is always free to use with no copyright restrictions. This does a nice job of clarifying that.

  16. Aug 2019
  17. Jul 2019
    1. e-purpose.

      Creative Commons covers 4 areas of practice: -re-use: right to verbatim reuse content

      • revise: right to change/ modify the content -remix: right to combine original or revised with new content -redistribute: right to make and share copies of content

      great for expanding, exploring, sharing and remixing content in the educational world.

  18. Dec 2018
    1. 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.

      This opinion/ editorial and the resulting dialogue adds some dimension to some of the pro and con arguments for adapting Creative Commons practices.

    1. 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.

      I think that license compatibility is one of the least user friendly areas in the Creative Commons process. Opening resources while being attributed sounds appealing to educators who are dipping their toes in these concepts. Then we pull out Compatibility Charts and people want to run for the hills! I think that the democracy and openness that Creative Commons embodies should be inclusive and I think it's hard for people to decipher these equations which are so crucial to responsible use.

    1. 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.

      I think contextualizing Creative Commons material as a component in global justice and thinking of fair distribution of resources and knowledge as an antidote to imperialism is a provocative concept.This blog, infojusticeorg offers perspectives on social justice and Creative Commons by many authors.

    1. 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 

      This clear description of the rights conferred by every Creative Commons license and the limitations written into every Creative Commons license provides a clear overview for educators who may be new to Creative Commons licenses. This guide was developed for Australian educators specifically.

    1. 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.

      One of the areas I find challenging in addressing Creative Commons culture is how Creative Commons relates to capitalistic culture (or rejects it). Creative Commons can be compatible with open market, but it can also challenge some of the fundamental tenants of it. Throughout the units, as I tried to imagine applications of Creative Commons, or making licensing decisions as a creative and academic, I found that I had questions about artists and how they can earn a living in this model, and how this model supported and challenged my role as a librarian in academe.

  19. Nov 2018
    1. 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.

      A great example of academic samizdat on Zeynep Tufekci's part.

      The free creative commons version is available in the footer link at https://www.twitterandteargas.org/

  20. Aug 2018
    1. 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

      Relevant content in the unit: Unit 3.2, Acquiring Essential Knowledge, What types of content can be CC-licensed, suggested additional content (related to both paragraphs in current content).

      While the primary purpose of this paper is about 3-D printing, this resource is a great overview of copyright law related to electronic files, whether they be photographs or the files for a 3-D printing project.

      This is an especially good resource for those interested in specific examples of the delineation of the functional, non-copyrightable aspect of a work and the artistic expression, copyrightable aspects of a work.

    2. 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'm not sure this FAQ response actually addresses the question.

      Most of the questions I get from faculty and OER advocates who work with faculty are fear-based about their reputation. I get questions like (put more bluntly than I usually get, these are the ultimate questions after a lot of back and forth):

      What if someone takes the history content I wrote and manipulates it a political position I don’t agree with? Won’t that reflect poorly on me?

      What if someone takes my math book and modifies it and makes mistakes? Won’t that reflect poorly on me if someone finds the modified version with mistakes and my name is attached to it?

      I think things like the above examples are what people are mostly asking when they ask about "misuse."

  21. Jul 2018
    1. 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.
    1. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

      I prefer sources that are short and to the point, with links allowing me to explore various topics if  I need to.  This piece goes over all of the basics of creating and maintaining a copyright license. While that is not the objective, typically, of someone taking a Creative Commons course, it helps to see this information from a pro-copyright perspective to understand all sides of the issue.

      It's also a primary source, meaning that the department issuing the copyrights in the United States also wrote this piece, which means it should be as accurate as possible.

  22. May 2018
  23. Apr 2018
    1. 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.

      Opposition from these groups killed the Eldred Act. Failure of what became Eldred v. Ashcroft gave rise both to the attempt to have this act passed and to the formation of Creative Commons.

  24. Nov 2017
    1. Arguingthatthedebate(orbattle)overcopyrightinthe1990swasbeingincreasinglypolarizedinto‘allrightsreserved’versus‘norightsreserved’extremes,LessigandhiscolleaguesfoundedtheCreativeCommonsconventionin2002toenabledigitalcreatorstomaintaincertainrightsfortheirintellectuallabourwhileprovidingitsdisseminationandcirculation.[75]Whileithasitscritics(whoarguethatitreproducestheflawsofcopyrightlaws),CreativeCommonsisaningeniousconventionthatruptures(resignifiesradically)acopyrightconventionandprovidesvariousactionsbywhichacreatorisabletospecifyrightsthatshewantstoretain

      [...] But the real interest in this convention, whether it is Bitcoin or any other digital currency, is what, once again, it demonstrates: that in the digital commons there is an inexhaustible ingenuity, and people are willing to contribute to its expansion and maintenance as a public domain.

    Tags

    Annotators

  25. May 2017
  26. Apr 2017
  27. Mar 2017
  28. Feb 2017
    1. 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.

      Interesting. I never realized there was this much of a distinction between CC0 and the CC PD license, but it makes sense.

  29. Nov 2016
  30. Sep 2016
  31. Jun 2016
    1. especter les dispositifs réglementaires et adhérer à l'utilisation des licences Créative Commons

      Though licensing issues may be less of a focus in Francophone work on Open Educational Resources, this portal mostly focuses on material under Creative Commons.

  32. Jan 2016
  33. Jul 2015