Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)

Posted Aug 28, 2012 4:25 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) by gmaxwell
Parent article: Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)

Yes, and?

I have several photos that became quite popular. They were reprinted on numerous blogs. I don't mind that authors of that blogs might get a fraction of a penny based on ads served on pages with my images.

However, I mind when a picture aggregator grabs all my works and reprints them with lots of ads. Or if a for-profit journal wants to print them or use in advertisement.

That's why I'd want a license that clearly delineates these two cases. The current CC licenses are close enough, but not perfect.

Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)

Posted Aug 28, 2012 4:37 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link] (2 responses)

And there are other people who don't want blogs making any money at all off something using their work (they'd prefer to get a cut of that usage, for example; or they are philosophically opposed to commercial activity of all/some forms), never-mind the drafting difficulties which distinguish a private blog and an aggregation which is trying to look like a private block for license evasion^woptimization purposes.

Of course, you could easily create a license which accomplishes this. It isn't some great dark art. But you shouldn't because license diversity is a social cost which should be minimized.

Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)

Posted Aug 28, 2012 4:42 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

I don't insist that the fix should be retroactive, I'm totally fine with completely non-commercial CC license version.

Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)

Posted Aug 28, 2012 9:52 UTC (Tue) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]

What he wants is a license that's essentially a "How I feel about it today" kind of license.

Which is exactly how the Open Source licenses got started, too, before they went through the process of becoming the clear-cut no-compromise things they are today. And it's now fine for Microsoft to make buillions of dollars with it, for the USA to monitor their citizens or for Al Qaida to build nuclear warheads with it.

But: I can use the code and I'm very clear about what I can do with it. And I can't use the photos, because a "CC" sign doesn't tell me anything and even the term "non-commercial" is so vague.

Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)

Posted Aug 28, 2012 8:20 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

In the typical case of such a grabber, do you think that the attribution requirements would have been met?