12 ms·

...which makes it really a shame when people use it, since it fragments the commons -- you can't combine it with CC-BY-SA content. For anyone considering, plea

...which makes it really a shame when people use it, since it fragments the commons -- you can't combine it with CC-BY-SA content. For anyone considering, please just use by-sa. The share-alike requirement is probably enough to discourage the exploitative type of commercial use you probably want to avoid.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I think CC-BY-NC-SA is quite good: basically the NC means that if you want to make money from this content then you should share with the creators, or at least ask for extra permission, that's reasonable IMO. You can still share my content, just not make money by sharing it (unless you ask). Is that really bad?
- riazrizvi 7y ago
  Yes. British people have already paid the lion's share of what is cost to produce these images, ie getting the artifacts cleaned and into a place where they can be easily photographed. We should be able to use it to generate revenue, since this is further taxed anyway. Seems like a wasted opportunity. Ironically many works of the British Library are out of copyright abroad, but remain in copyright within the UK.
- Teever 7y ago
  That's a good question. Another good question is "Should the nation of Greece and the Greek people be allowed to profit off of pictures that the British Museum has taken of objects that are only in the British Museum because they were pillaged by British soldiers?" It seems really bad that a nation can invade many other nations and pillage their cultural pieces to squirrel them away in a museum and then dictate to the citizens of those nations what they can or can't do with pictures of the artifacts. The notion that the British Museum can tell Egyptian citizen what they can or can't do with photographs of the Rosetta Stone is pretty odious.
  - new2628 7y ago
    I agree with the sentiment, but at a more abstract level it is almost as shaky that an Egyptian citizen today is entitled to art from the pharaonic times more than a British citizen today.
    - kingkawn 7y ago
      Nothing shaky about it since the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        It's the classic problem. I think when I am much older I will commit a lot of crime to benefit my great grandchildren. Time will ease their culpability and they can use arguments like the above.
        eru 7y ago
        Right of conquest is often how kings get a kingdom or expand it.
        rbg246 7y ago
        And was criminalised after world war 2, so its proceeds from a historical crime.
        desas 7y ago
        By that standard so is the whole of America. There's a line to draw somewhere.
        kingkawn 6y ago
        How convenient for America
- m4rtink 7y ago
  The problem with any Non Commercial licenses is where you draw the line. Say you want to mirror these images, can you show ads on the site to cover hosting costs ? What about asking for donations ? What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs ? It gets murky pretty fast, often preventing people from even using such media as they fear possible issues down the line due to uncertainty. At the same time, any bootleggers won't care. Due to this NC clauses are generally not recommended and are for example not part of any OCI accepted open source licenses.
  - gerdesj 7y ago
    "What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs" That does not fit my mental definition of "commercial", which I would define as for profit. I'm sure there are corner cases but I don't think that is one of them. Running ads whilst mirroring them - that might be hard to justify unless the revenue was only enough to support the website. Then you should wonder why mirror them at all? Now what about using them in a novel way which is ad supported? Probably OK, provided its at cost and you attribute the source.
    - judge2020 7y ago
      Commercial usage includes any exchange of money, even if you're taking a huge financial loss by using the images, so this license prohibits all of that.
      - ElFitz 7y ago
        Really depends. Don't know about other countries, but French private pilotes (PPL) aren't allowed to fly commercially. Yet, they can and often do split the cost of the flight (fuel) with their passengers, and that is considered to be within the law. Even though there is an exchange of money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - eru 7y ago
        'For profit' status isn't about actually making a profit, but about specific commercial arrangements. A money losing company doesn't suddenly become a 'non-profit'. But no clue whether the license care about this?
- dingaling 7y ago
  > Is that really bad? Yes, it's quite mean-spirited. Basically others are free to use the thing that the licenser made unless they're savvy enough to think of a way to make money from it, in which case the licenser gets pissy and says "nope". For no reason other than "I didn't think of that".
  - paranoidrobot 7y ago
    > in which case the licenser gets pissy and says "nope". For no reason other than "I didn't think of that". This is certainly not the intent that I had when choosing that license for the photos I published. I saw what Virgin Mobile Australia did[1][2] by pulling CC-BY attributed photos from Flickr and that cemented my position on not wanting my photos to be used in advertising. [1] https://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ https://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ [2] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo-20070921-gdr5wg.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teen...
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >For no reason other than "I didn't think of that". Of course there are other possible reasons. Many people have a range of relevant ideological positions on the profit motive, and when and where it should be applied.
- smichel17 7y ago
  Here's a blog post from a friend of mine that explains my viewpoint pretty well. Skip to "Issues with Creative Commons licensing" (or read the whole thing, it's not that long): https://blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.html https://blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.htm... edit: I'll add on (my opinion, not from the post) that commercial use that actually respects the share-alike requirement is actually a good thing. Say I take a photo and share it cc-by-sa, then a company adapts edits it to use on their website and releases the edited version cc-by-sa (as they are required to). Now anybody else can use their edited version, too. In effect, we've taken commercial dollars and put them towards adding to the commons. I think that's a great outcome, in a world where currently most FLO[1] works are extremely underfunded. The type of commercial use that I'm opposed to is where a company takes something I (or others) make, embeds it into their proprietary product, and contributes nothing back to the FLO ecosystem (money or time). That's exploitative. But the share-alike requirement already prevents this, without creating incompatibility among otherwise FLO licenses. [1]: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open#flo https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open#flo
pwdisswordfish2 7y ago
just use cc0, for god’s sake.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

I think CC-BY-NC-SA is quite good: basically the NC means that if you want to make money from this content then you should share with the creators, or at least ask for extra permission, that's reasonable IMO. You can still share my content, just not make money by sharing it (unless you ask). Is that really bad?

riazrizvi 7y ago
Yes. British people have already paid the lion's share of what is cost to produce these images, ie getting the artifacts cleaned and into a place where they can be easily photographed. We should be able to use it to generate revenue, since this is further taxed anyway. Seems like a wasted opportunity. Ironically many works of the British Library are out of copyright abroad, but remain in copyright within the UK.
Teever 7y ago
That's a good question. Another good question is "Should the nation of Greece and the Greek people be allowed to profit off of pictures that the British Museum has taken of objects that are only in the British Museum because they were pillaged by British soldiers?" It seems really bad that a nation can invade many other nations and pillage their cultural pieces to squirrel them away in a museum and then dictate to the citizens of those nations what they can or can't do with pictures of the artifacts. The notion that the British Museum can tell Egyptian citizen what they can or can't do with photographs of the Rosetta Stone is pretty odious.
- new2628 7y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but at a more abstract level it is almost as shaky that an Egyptian citizen today is entitled to art from the pharaonic times more than a British citizen today.
  - kingkawn 7y ago
    Nothing shaky about it since the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      It's the classic problem. I think when I am much older I will commit a lot of crime to benefit my great grandchildren. Time will ease their culpability and they can use arguments like the above.
      - eru 7y ago
        Right of conquest is often how kings get a kingdom or expand it.
        rbg246 7y ago
        And was criminalised after world war 2, so its proceeds from a historical crime.
        desas 7y ago
        By that standard so is the whole of America. There's a line to draw somewhere.
        kingkawn 6y ago
        How convenient for America
m4rtink 7y ago
The problem with any Non Commercial licenses is where you draw the line. Say you want to mirror these images, can you show ads on the site to cover hosting costs ? What about asking for donations ? What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs ? It gets murky pretty fast, often preventing people from even using such media as they fear possible issues down the line due to uncertainty. At the same time, any bootleggers won't care. Due to this NC clauses are generally not recommended and are for example not part of any OCI accepted open source licenses.
- gerdesj 7y ago
  "What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs" That does not fit my mental definition of "commercial", which I would define as for profit. I'm sure there are corner cases but I don't think that is one of them. Running ads whilst mirroring them - that might be hard to justify unless the revenue was only enough to support the website. Then you should wonder why mirror them at all? Now what about using them in a novel way which is ad supported? Probably OK, provided its at cost and you attribute the source.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    Commercial usage includes any exchange of money, even if you're taking a huge financial loss by using the images, so this license prohibits all of that.
    - ElFitz 7y ago
      Really depends. Don't know about other countries, but French private pilotes (PPL) aren't allowed to fly commercially. Yet, they can and often do split the cost of the flight (fuel) with their passengers, and that is considered to be within the law. Even though there is an exchange of money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - eru 7y ago
      'For profit' status isn't about actually making a profit, but about specific commercial arrangements. A money losing company doesn't suddenly become a 'non-profit'. But no clue whether the license care about this?
dingaling 7y ago
> Is that really bad? Yes, it's quite mean-spirited. Basically others are free to use the thing that the licenser made unless they're savvy enough to think of a way to make money from it, in which case the licenser gets pissy and says "nope". For no reason other than "I didn't think of that".
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  > in which case the licenser gets pissy and says "nope". For no reason other than "I didn't think of that". This is certainly not the intent that I had when choosing that license for the photos I published. I saw what Virgin Mobile Australia did[1][2] by pulling CC-BY attributed photos from Flickr and that cemented my position on not wanting my photos to be used in advertising. [1] https://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ https://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ [2] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo-20070921-gdr5wg.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teen...
- jshevek 7y ago
  >For no reason other than "I didn't think of that". Of course there are other possible reasons. Many people have a range of relevant ideological positions on the profit motive, and when and where it should be applied.
smichel17 7y ago
Here's a blog post from a friend of mine that explains my viewpoint pretty well. Skip to "Issues with Creative Commons licensing" (or read the whole thing, it's not that long): https://blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.html https://blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.htm... edit: I'll add on (my opinion, not from the post) that commercial use that actually respects the share-alike requirement is actually a good thing. Say I take a photo and share it cc-by-sa, then a company adapts edits it to use on their website and releases the edited version cc-by-sa (as they are required to). Now anybody else can use their edited version, too. In effect, we've taken commercial dollars and put them towards adding to the commons. I think that's a great outcome, in a world where currently most FLO[1] works are extremely underfunded. The type of commercial use that I'm opposed to is where a company takes something I (or others) make, embeds it into their proprietary product, and contributes nothing back to the FLO ecosystem (money or time). That's exploitative. But the share-alike requirement already prevents this, without creating incompatibility among otherwise FLO licenses. [1]: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open#flo https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open#flo

pwdisswordfish2 7y ago

just use cc0, for god’s sake.