Licenses and Commons

From KnowledgeLab
Jump to navigation Jump to search


publishing: DIY publishing: problem with the distribution costs NON-CORPORATE PREFFERED

2 ideas preventing use of author's work 1. ethical idea: author: moral rights over their works 2.copyright legislation

different kind of permissions;

- all rights reserved

- copy it but keep intact

- anti-copyright: is not legally defined

main licenses:

1. creative commons license

2. creative artlicense

3. GPL: Gnu General Public License, for software: freedom to share, modify and share modifications under same license

4. Public Domain: no copyright, duration of copyright 75 years in Europe, in US apparantly now 95 years

- Example for Public Domain and its difficulties: The little mermaid, Walt Disney took Hans Anderson's folk story and modified it, released it as film and now it is protected under copyright

1.) Creative commons:

- 12 different ones

- statements: attribution, derivative use, sharealike, commercial use

Free artlicense:

- similar to creative commons attribution-sharealike license

Free documentation license:

- similar to creative commons attribution-sharealike license by Lawrence Lessig



- problem of compatibilty between the licenses: what if combine artworks of different licenses e.g. Creative commons and artlicense: you could not combine it

- Creative Commons has the Developing Nations License: question to have license for specific situations rather than specific usage/purpose

- difficulty with non-commercial license: lots of activists use it, but equalise it with capitalism, which is not necessarily true e.g. For non-profit or activist publications

- fair use of copyright - exception to copyright, is this enough?

- copyright law only really a right for people who can enforce it, e.g. who have got money to go to court and sue, mainly big corporation

- e.g. Music downloads and sharing, court case against Napster

- business models of open content very immature

- adverts at start of video rentals: equalise breach of copyright with terrorism

- creative commons license doesn't mean much to people, better to explain e.g. Feel free to redistribute and share

- copyright disenables collaboration

- copyright disenables educational means despite of fair use e.g. problems with sourcing and screening documentary films

- more interesting to talk about problems with creative commons licenses

- artists in the middle east: the huge distributors don't exist

- criticism of Creative Commons as a specialist niche for Lawrence Lessig and co.

- implementation of Creative Commons

- can speed of creativity stop businesses from catching up and make money out of it

- discussion: could creative commons be classified as tax evations: such as LETS scheme

- discussion: open licenses are still emerging and are applied to one area of life

- discussion: contribution of the licenses very much on an ideological level such as utopias