This course will become read-only in the near future. Tell us at community.p2pu.org if that is a problem.
You: Are an awesome citizen of the web. Want to share your work with others. Want to use stuff that people have shared with you.
This challenge: Will familiarize you with the range of Creative Commons licenses, which grant permission to the world to use creative work in specific ways. Will get you started on the road to CC savvy with a few short videos and activities.
Image: CC on Orange by Yamashita Yohei, CC BY license.
Contribute to an international research project and help us understand more about the use of open resources! Take this closing survey to give feedback on your learning experience and help us improve the course: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/School_Of_Open_ALL
I have found this tutorial very helpful. I am an eLearning Coach for a school corporation planning a presentation on Copyright and Creative Commons to deliver at a summer PD conference and this information hs been very helpful. Does anyone know of any other resources such as this that breaks down copyright and/or creative commons into simple terms?
Hey Bill,
CC is working on a community resources page that will point to this challenge in addition to highlighting other helpful handouts and resources created by the CC community! For now,
* more School of Open courses are at: http://schoolofopen.org/.
* Also here is a CC half pager that you can print out: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/6/62/Creativecommons-informational-flyer_eng.pdf
* And lots more at http://creativecommons.org/
Best,
Jane
I used the Creative Commons Website to help explain. The issue the friend brought up (as most educators will) is that not everything is under Creative Commons. We discussed the protection that CC offers. Did the friend get it? Yes, but sadly they only apply what suits them. More educational institutions need to educate and enforce copyright and CC - in so far as they are able. We can't be copyright police, but more could be done!
I explained creative commons to a friend and showed them how to find images with a creative commons license on flickr. They were interested in it but said that Google search came up with more images. I tried to explain that some of those images have a copyright on them but they still prefered to use one through Google.
Another interesting creative commons story happened yesterday by chance. The secretary at my school was working on the school newsletter and complained that teachers were sending her material to put on the newsletter but no images. She jumped on Google and started searching for an image to throw in. I quickly told her that she shouldn't just grab anything from Google and she looked stunned. She said she would be interested in learning more about Creative Commons but really doesn't have the time. Secretaries don't get a lot of time for P.D. in our board which is unfortunate
Interesting. Did you try showing her the advanced search section in Google where you can filter by reuse rights? eg. CC license
Sorry Jane to be such a noob, but could you point me somehow to that filter on Google, I would find it super useful.
It's just in Google advanced search: http://www.google.com/advanced_search. Go to Usage Rights at the bottom.
Creative Commons usually comes up at the elementary school level in one of two ways. Some teachers are surprised to find out about Creative Commons licenses and would like to know more about them. Other teachers, who do know about the licenses, would like to know more about proper attribution. In both cases, the question is usually asked, "Isn't there a website or a game that we can use to help teach students about this?" It would be terrific if the "pick the correct license" activity could be made into a game for elementary students (and their teachers) for instance. Are there resources designed for younger students?
My student iPhoneography group met this week, and we discussed CC licensing since we will be sharing photos on Flickr. This was the second of our discussions on copyright, and they seem to understand the licensing options they have if they choose to go CC. I think it has made them think twice about just using a photo they find on the Internet without paying attention to the licensing and the creator. That is a good thing! Things are different when you are the creator!
The only real questions that came up was relating to commercial and the share-alike. I think they were surprised that someone might want to take photos they had created and sell them...without their permission. They also questioned the share-alike option wondering why the creator might want to request the borrower of their images to license it in the same manner. That was a bit cloudy. They wondered why that would matter...or when it would matter. I didn't have good examples to share with them.
Hey Stephanie,
Re: "I think they were surprised that someone might want to take photos they had created and sell them...without their permission." -- There are a lot of reasons why someone might permit commercial uses in advance: a creator wants to distribute her work as widely as possible and doesn't have the means or time to distribute it in formatted, print form; to reduce legal overhead to include in a larger work where many third party rights holders are involved; to illustrate a concept in a textbook that will ultimately be sold at cost recovery $; etc.
Re: "They also questioned the share-alike option wondering why the creator might want to request the borrower of their images to license it in the same manner. That was a bit cloudy. They wondered why that would matter...or when it would matter." -- Many creators add the SA option because they would like for any derivatives to be contributed back freely to the public, adding to a "commons" of growing public domain and openly licensed works. For example, Wikipedia has a CC BY-SA license because its community believes any adaptations, for example translations of articles, remain under the same free terms to access and reuse as the rest of Wikipedia.
I spoke to a clsoe friend and restaurateur about how CC might be used in his cafe to, for instance, publish a cookbook. He raised the usual concerns about copyright and giving his ideas away for free. I discussed the ways this might be addressed, for instance, releasing the recipes under a license that didn't allow for commercial derivatives or modifications. He was still skeptical. The cafe has live music, and he pointed out that for the musicians, using the license might make sense, but for him, he wants his recipes to be private and privileged and he wants others not to be able to acquire them without some fee (either paying for a book or coming to his restaurant). I pointed out that he could still sell a book under a CC license, but he countered that others could give it away for free, so what would be the point. This was a challenge to answer. He pointed out that perhaps if it were a different point in his career and the cafe's, where it needed the exposure, this could be a great tool, but for where he was, he wouldn't feel comfortable using a CC license to publish anything.
Hey TK,
Actually, under US law recipes can't be copyrighted, see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html. "Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook."
So essentially, once the recipe is out there, anyone can reuse it! However, the copyrighted expression of the accompanying components mentioned above, could be released under a CC license if the creator so chose. Your friend is right in that it may help with exposure, but if he feels he does not need to share the book more freely for it to reach people, then of course he can just rely default copyright laws.
There was a question that my mother asked that I was not able to answer: who regulates the proper use of these licenses, especially the ShareAlike one? She proposed a hypothetical situation where someone uses a work, but does not share it with the same license as its original creator. What is there to be done in that case, can a legal procedure start from that problem?
My mother rose a very interesting point: there are certain cases where CC licenses are not appropriate, like on very private use of material, say, the logo or name of a company. You do not want anyone else to use or modify that logo because that is a corporate image.
My mother and I did get the topic, though, and are planning to use the licenses for educational contents she has created.
Hi Isobel,
Re: "who regulates the proper use of these licenses, especially the ShareAlike one? " -- Just like anything shared on the web under any legal terms, whether CC license, custom legal terms, or all rights reserved copyright, it is usually the creator of the work who discovers misuse and asks for corrections, or someone who notifies the creator that their work is being misused. With CC licenses, there is the CC community of creators and users around the world who are pretty good at detecting and pointing out misuses of CC-licensed work. Usually, when a creator discovers that one of her CC-licensed works is being misused, a simple email exchange sorts out the issue. When the misuse continues, the creator can take it to court (as with any copyright violation). Here are the list of the few cases that actually made it to court where CC licenses were upheld: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law
Re: "there are certain cases where CC licenses are not appropriate, like on very private use of material, say, the logo or name of a company." -- Yup. And for logos, trademark law (which is separate from copyright law) often governs the use of the logo and company brand. CC licenses only govern the legal sharing of the copyrights in a work, so trademark law would still apply to any trademark even if the copyright was CC licensed. The Creative Commons logo itself is one good example -- it is not CC licensed (even though the rest of the website is) and is governed by CC's trademark policies: http://creativecommons.org/policies
If you do not follow CC conditions you are actually in breach of copyright. The owner of the material could pursue you. Creative Commons is simply a method whereby owners of copyright can, if they wish, share their material in a more "open" way with others albeit with some conditions attached e.g. share-alike or non-commercial.
The question that my friend (fellow co-worker) had was if people are goign to so much trouble to C or CC their work, why isn't it a more common practice to learn about these licenses and what they mean? He also asked if the work has been changed from the original but it has been shared, do you give credit to all who have collaborated on the work?
What are the consequences of not following the license and how strictly are these enforced?
Hey Susan, although I don't have any hard data, recent open policy trends and the large amount of CC licensed works on the web suggest that CC licenses are becoming quite common in many circles, especially in education. I agree that education about the CC licenses hasn't quite caught up, which is why we're trying to change that with the School of Open! A lot of librarians and educators actually do incorporate CC license education into their curricula, however, like some of your peers who are taking this course!
Regarding attribution best practices, yes it would be a best practice to give credit to all creators of the work, but as reasonable to the medium and context. The attribution requirement is designed to be flexible. See this FAQ for more info.
How strictly a license is enforced is up to the licensor. (Keep in mind that this applies to any copyrightholder posting their work on the web, even if they don't use CC licenses.) Some licensors might sue, as in these very rare and far between court cases, but most licensors will simply request the user to correct his or her mistake (because it's usually just an oversight) and such cases are often quickly resolved with an email or tweet. One of the benefits of CC is a global community of CC creators and users that can help with recognizing when a work is being used improperly (or fantastically -- and then particularly creative reuse is a boon to the original creator).
I used the first video explaining the relationship between C and CC and that pretty much helped my colleague finally understand CC completely - they thought it was more of a rivaly thing too.
One question raised by my friend is why hasn't the government absorbed CC or least made some form of it, since it is a relatively unknown force - why doesn't the government do something more outwardly to show support of CC?
"One question raised by my friend is why hasn't the government absorbed CC or least made some form of it, since it is a relatively unknown force - why doesn't the government do something more outwardly to show support of CC?"
Good Question! Let's see if we can get one of our friends from Creative Commons to field this one.
Hey Tony! If you're talking about the US government, it definitely has shown support for CC and CC related initiatives. CC is the legal framework for sharing on the web, so CC itself doesn't get much press, but it's definitely part of the various open policies in place at federal, state, and local levels around the world. You can read more at http://creativecommons.org/government.
A few major examples of US government support:
In short, lately open policies have been taking off!
I always find it reasonably easy to explain what CC is and how it works. However, it becomes a little more complex when the actual decision making has to occur. There are many resources available to anybody wishing to approach CC, but it takes a bit of time and a willingness to change approach.
I was able to explain Creative Commons to my subject. While he didn't ask any questions, it seems as if he got the gist of it.
Can content licensed under CC BY-NC be remixed with CC BY?
Generally, yes. Those two licenses are compatible as long as you're not making a "commercial" use.
My friend plans to create a personal website to showcase his architecture work and personal photography. We discussed the different types of CC licenses he would use for various works. I think we may have another user!
What questions did your friend ask that you couldn't answer?
Does that mean that everything that isn’t licensed under CC must be evaluated in terms of Fair Use?
Did your friend raise any interesting points? Pros and cons?
My friend brought up cases where people had created work for Fiat and were responsible for licensing it under Attribution and it resulted in the company’s greater personal interest of gaining content without having to support the financial aspect of the creative endeavor directly. I think there is still a greater overarching fear in some creative communities of this being the case if they do choose to license under the less restrictive options.
Did your friend get it? Do you get it?
For the most part I feel the understood it but do feel they are still insecure about the topic at large. I shared the videos as well and that seemed to help but there seemed to be this overarching interpretation that it was better for standard data and scientific research that benefited people more when it was more available and less beneficial in terms of artistic endeavors that could be taken advantage of. I feel like I understand it and agree with the concept as a whole. I think it encourages more awareness and creativity between communities and individuals and align myself with that greater interest. But I can also sympathize with this fear on some levels since I cannot fully explain or determine how it would work in their defense aside from choosing the NonCommercial licensing options. (Is that the answer? And if it is, is it reassuring enough?)
If I do use a creative commons license can I chenge my mind latter and change to all rights reserved?
See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F.
