Another person misunderstanding CC...

Hi Fred and All

re:
On 2/28/07, Fred Benenson <fred.benensongmail.com> wrote:
> (...)
> http://newteevee.com/2007/02/26/drm-alterna
tives-qa-with-steve-ohear/
> (...)
> Steve O'Hear: We retain full copyright. It's not
Creative Commons. The
> problem with a CC license, is most people use the
non-commercial one, which
> doesn't really help the next generation of filmmaker
because even recouping
> costs is commercial. We had months of clearing rights
to use images, et
> cetera.
>NewTeeVee: Makes sense. ... "
>
> Is it me, or is he profoundly misunderstanding the
principle of the
> Non-Commercial license here? It would seem that the
Non-Commercial license
> is exactly what his film makers would want; that is the
ability to retain
> the exclusive right to profit from their work. He seems
to be
> misinterpreting Non-Commercial to mean the inability to
profit from one's
> own work.
(...)

Maybe it 's the journalist who didn't understand, or the
piece could
have been brutally cut. It is true that if you obtain the
right to use
content that is under a proprietary license, the copyright
owner might
not allow you to offer the part you use under a non
proprietary
license.

With the above researve, though, your exemple reminds me
uncannily of
a long e-mail discussion based on the misunderstanding you
describe 3
years ago.
-- 
Claude Almansi
v. Cantonale 22
CH-6532 Castione
tel. +41 (0)91 829 04 51
cell. +41 (0)76 401 85 69
gruppo di lavoro Noi Media www.noimedia.org
Swiss Internet User Group www.siug.ch
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

> *Steve O'Hear We retain
full copyright. It's not Creative
> Commons. The problem with a CC license, is most people
use the
> non-commercial one, which doesn't really help the next
> generation of filmmaker because even recouping costs is
commercial.

> Is it me, or is he profoundly misunderstanding the
principle of the
> Non-Commercial license here?

Maybe he's trying to say: "Most people use CC-NC, which
doesn't
help downstream people  (next generation of filmaker)
because
they can't sell derivatives that they create from CC-NC
works".

That would at least make sense, linguistically and legally.
The only problem is that while this explains a problem with
CC-NC, it doesn't explain why he didn't use CC-SA or
something
that did allow the next generation of filmmaker to sell
derivs.

Someone in that interview didn't understand something.

Greg

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:21:59AM -0500, Fred Benenson
wrote:
> 
> "NewTeeVee So what
kind of license are you distributing the film under?
> Since it's without DRM, it would make it easier for
others to incorporate in
> their work, at least technically.
> 
> *Steve O'Hear We retain
full copyright. It's not Creative Commons. The
> problem with a CC license, is most people use the
non-commercial one, which
> doesn't really help the next generation of filmmaker
because even recouping
> costs is commercial. We had months of clearing rights
to use images, et
> cetera.
> *NewTeeVee Makes
sense. ... "

It sounds like he means he wants to stay away from all CC
licenses
because -in some cases- he wouldn't be able to reuse other
peoples'
NC'ed work. I agree that someone is misunderstanding CC,
here.


> The content of this email message is licensed under a
Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights
Reserved.
> http:/
/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

Off topic, but does this mean that my message must be CC
by-sa as well
because I've reused what you wrote in this reply? Meh, fair
use should
cover it ;).


-nile

-- 
 .''`. |       John Nile Li
: :' : |   http://deadbox.ath.cx
`. `'  | This Sig Kills Fascists!
  `-

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:21 -0500, Fred Benenson wrote:
> Is it me, or is he profoundly misunderstanding the
principle of the
> Non-Commercial license here? It would seem that the
Non-Commercial
> license is exactly what his film makers would want;
that is the
> ability to retain the exclusive right to profit from
their work. He
> seems to be misinterpreting Non-Commercial to mean the
inability to
> profit from one's own work. 

He seems to be conflating his inability to incorporate
others' NC
content in his film and actually licensing his film.

He's wrong to conflate the two and misleading in that
although ~2/3 of
CC licensed content is under a license that includes NC,
there's a huge
amount that doesn't.

-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> He seems to be conflating his inability to incorporate
others' NC
> content in his film and actually licensing his film.
>
> He's wrong to conflate the two and misleading in that
although ~2/3 of
> CC licensed content is under a license that includes
NC, there's a huge
> amount that doesn't.
>

There is, indeed, a huge number of works under licenses that
don't include 
the NC clause. I'm just about finished compiling a book of
the best CC 
photos from 2006. There were 18 million photos put under CC
licenses on 
Flickr in 2006 and *3 million* of those were under CC-BY,
which is where 
I'm pulling photos from for the book.

All of the proceeds from the book will be donated to CC as
an 
organization.

--
J Wynia
Software Developer, Writer and Geek
The Glass is Too Big
http://www.wynia.org
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 14:22 -0600, J Wynia wrote:
> There is, indeed, a huge number of works under licenses
that don't include 
> the NC clause. I'm just about finished compiling a book
of the best CC 
> photos from 2006. There were 18 million photos put
under CC licenses on 
> Flickr in 2006 and *3 million* of those were under
CC-BY, which is where 
> I'm pulling photos from for the book.

Excellent idea!

> All of the proceeds from the book will be donated to CC
as an 
> organization.

Even better. 

-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:22:07PM -0600, J Wynia wrote:
> 
> There is, indeed, a huge number of works under licenses
that don't include 
> the NC clause. I'm just about finished compiling a book
of the best CC 
> photos from 2006. There were 18 million photos put
under CC licenses on 
> Flickr in 2006 and *3 million* of those were under
CC-BY, which is where 
> I'm pulling photos from for the book.
> 
> All of the proceeds from the book will be donated to CC
as an 
> organization.

That's *awesome*! Be sure to send a link this way when
you're done!


-Nile


-- 
 .''`. |       John Nile Li
: :' : |   http://deadbox.ath.cx
`. `'  | This Sig Kills Fascists!
  `-

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community