Talk:Creative Commons licenses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been assessed as low-importance on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creative Commons licenses article.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] PLoS License

(moved from Village pump)

Does anyone know whether the Public Library of Science license is compatible with the use of their materials in Wikipedia? It should be similar to the BioMedCentral license.

This is a tricky issue. It's the Creative Commons Attribution license [1], which, as with almost all other attribution-but-otherwise-free licenses, is "almost GFDL compatible". The GFDL has no problem with requiring authorship attribution in most cases (and in fact does so itself), but when a work has more than 5 authors, only requires you to attribute 5 of them. Thus, the following scenario would lead to a license conflict: you take a CC-licensed work, and 5 users substantially edit and add to it. Now under the GFDL, you are permitted to attribute it to these 5 users, and not attribute the sixth author, while under the CC license you are required to attribute the original author still. This is a relatively minor conflict in my mind, but it may still be a technical one. --Delirium 09:28, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)
You could add the attribution as an invariant section, or you could add the attribution to the "History" section, which is extend-only in the GFDL. Either would work. Martin 16:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What problems do the OSI and Debian have with Creative Commons licenses?

The article mentions vaguely that there are problems, but not what they are. Anyone got more info/references? —Morven

The problem for OSI and Debian is most likely that the licenses don't require source code distribution to be made available. The only way you could stop someone from stripping out the source code from your version is through the no derivatives clause. This violates Debian and OSI's rulew that specifically states that derivative works must be allowed. Superm401 18:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, a Debian analysis link at the bottom of the page now clarifies all this. Graue 05:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to Creative Commons FAQ, “ Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software.” Criticisms of them as software licenses are thus irrelevant; any criticism should instead be aimed at projects using them for software. -Ahruman 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Software often comes with documentation and sometimes people do make the mistake of using a Creative Commons license for their manuals, rather than using a license like the GNU Free Documentation License. That is perhaps how CC licenses intercept with softare projects. --75.69.87.211 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified the "anti-DRM" issue... I thought that the phrasing, as it was, seemed to say this: "Debian doesn't like CC because it's anti-DRM!". For what I read, the problem with CC is the "anti-DRM" clause isn't clear enough and can be (mis)interpreted.--213.156.50.70 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "For unknown reasons"

I have listed a couple of things "for unknown reasons" because I find the Creative Commons web site hard to navigate and sparse on information. If anyone can explain (1) why the license having none of the 4 clauses is not considered valid, and (2) why the licenses without attribution are being phased out, please add that information to the article. --P3d0 02:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Creative Commons with no clauses is the same thing as public domain.
  • I assume that people just didn't use the licenses without attribution. Leaving that clause out seems fairly silly. RSpeer 22:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Much like Rspeer said above, I remember reading that they were getting rid of "without attribution" because 98% of people (or a similiar percentage) chose to keep attribution. So they didn't see much need/demand for a "without" it. Sorry I can't remember the source. --Pengo 10:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Creative Commons with no clauses is the same thing as public domain" - I don't think so, there would still be a lot of rules and disclaimers left if you remove the attribution requirement from the CC-BY license. I removed that information from the article until somebody can prove otherwise. --V111P (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BY-NC?

I am confused. What is the difference between BY-NC and BY-NC-SA. And if there is a difference, what is the use of BY-NC? Someone can make some modifications and sell the stuff, even under a proprietary license. Or am I missing something? G-u-a-k-@ 20:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, BY-NC seems fairly useless without the SA clause, as anyone could reuse the material under a CC license that doesn't have the NC clause, and make a profit out of it. That's probably why there isn't a ByNC template on Wikipedia. Phoenix-forgotten 22:33, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  • BY-NC would make sense for software applications, though CC licenses aren't thought to be so great as software licenses, since it allows derivative code to be created that contains properietary parts. Can't think of anything with literary derived works. ---- Charles Stewart 14:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Localisation

I've added the following - "Creative Commons licenses are available under several juristictions.". However this article really needs contributions from people who know about juristiction and international copyright laws. Does the lack of localised version of the GFDL mean that it's not defendable in the UK? I understand that there are questions regarding "moral rights" and free software licenses as the concept of moral rights apparently doesn't exist in US copyright law. Needs lots - please help! Secretlondon 09:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2.0 and 2.5

I noticed that there are versions 2.0 and 2.5 of the licenses. I have some pics licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0. Should I add the mark for cc-by-sa-2.5?

What should I use for new pics? 2.0? 2.5? Both? --Error 21:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a suggestions forum. As for the questions about different versions of the CC licenses, that should be answered. I can't find the differences between 2.0 and 2.5. --70.111.218.254 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Info is provided here: [2] Info on it should be included in the article to illustrate the differences between old and newer versions of the licenses. --70.111.218.254 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Some other info: [3] [4] --70.111.218.254 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only 6 valid license types, not 11

The text says (as of 27Jan2006): "Mixing and matching these conditions produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid Creative Commons licenses."

Isn't this incorrect (since in the CC site I don't see any evidence of NOT-by licenses)?

68.8.242.130 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There were 11 licenses in CC version 1, which had attribution as an option that could be chosen or not. But effectively nobody used the licenses without attribution. CC version 2 licenses inherently include attribution. At least, I believe that's how the phase-out of non-By licenses is happening. Anyway, the article does say that the 5 licenses without By are being phased out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Btw, four conditions make a total of 14 possible combinations (or 15 if you count the combination which has no conditions included at all), not 16. Wopr (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FSF

The Free Software Foundation does not "recommend" these licenses.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses says:

`We recommend using the Free Art License, rather than this one, so as to avoid augmenting the problem caused by the vagueness of "a Creative Commons license"' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.11.222.167 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC-8)

Looks like the line is still in there. the citation does not contain anything saying that, so I tagged it with {{fact}}. —Andrew Hampe Talk 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] license icons

fyi, the images of the cc license icons are all available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons phoebe 19:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I have contributed an article on General Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. There is a picture on this article which I want to remove in preference for another, better, picture - unless it is deemed sensible to have both pictures of Asgill on his article? The new picture is copyrighted to the National Army Museum in London. I have, today, had written permission to use their picture and have paid them £45 to do so. There are a number of things I have no idea how to deal with and they are: 1) how do I remove the present picture - or should it stay as well as the new one? 2) how do I upload the new one and under what kind of licence must it now be put onto Wikipedia - NAM hold the copyright, but I have paid them to use it and they have given permission. 3) I am afraid that all the copyright information leaves me still very confused and I do not know how to get this new picture uploaded now that I have paid the money to the National Army Museum. Please could someone give me a child's guide as to how to deal with this? Thank you.--Arbil44 09:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you ask this question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. However, I have the feeling you will need to check what conditions they allow you to use the image under. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License of CC License Text

I thought the text of a creative commons license is available under CC-BY. Is this assumption right? --Yamavu (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No copyright is asserted, however trademark is -- altered license texts may not be called CC licenses, see http://creativecommons.org/policies Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with attribution

As I license a number of images under the CC-BY-SA x.x license with attribution required, I thought of an interesting point. Nowhere in the license (as far as I can see) does it state exactly how the attribution or link to the actual license should occur. It seems like some people, to avoid 'spoiling' their web page or document's visuals, don't actually provide attribution or the license near the image or even on the same page as the image. In the example in question here, this person does provide attribution for the image's use on about page of the website, but the image use occurs every other page, where the attribution is not given. Am I correct in expecting that the attribution should be visible very near the image itself (not on a different page or in tiny fine print at the bottom of the page? The license appears vague, but it does say:

  • Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.

I don't want to be unreasonable about licensing my images but it does seem like the terms of the license are not followed correctly in this instance. And it sounds like the license is essentially saying "Well, if you can find an example of where other images are not attributed properly, then you can use that as a precedent for doing the same with your image." I'm not overly concerned about this particular use of my image, but it did raise the issue in my head where images may be used more commercially by bending the rules. Any thoughts? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask this at CC-Community mailing list: [5]. (By the way, CC-BY-SA images can be used together with commercial All-rigths-reserved texts). --V111P (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright or privacy?

The case hinges on privacy, the right of people not to have their likeness used in an ad without permission. So, while Mr. Wong may have given away his rights as a photographer, he did not, and could not, give away Alison's rights. In the lawsuit, which Mr. Wong is also a party to, there is an argument that Virgin did not honor all the terms of the nonrestrictive license

This explaination, while admitedly a quote, seems to contradict itself. First it talks about privacy. Then at the end, it says "Virgin did not honor all the terms of the nonrestrictive license". This seems a bit bizzare since the license of course only covers the copyright of the photo, not the privacy rights of the individuals in the photo, privacy rights (or the right to control how one's image is used) usually being something complete different from copyright Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"the license of course only covers the copyright of the photo" - What makes you think so? I don't think the license says that. "Virgin did not honor all the terms of the nonrestrictive license" - This may have nothing to do with the privacy issue. According to Larry Lessig, the photographer claims Virgin did not attribute the picture to him,[6] and probably that's what this sentence is about. It should be deleted from the article, unless somebody can prove that it is related to the privacy problem and explain what it is supposed to mean. --V111P (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)