4 ms·
I don't understand how it is so difficult to get copyright to work on the internet, it seems like this problem should have been solved by a licensing structure
by mcintyre1994 14y ago
I don't understand how it is so difficult to get copyright to work on the internet, it seems like this problem should have been solved by a licensing structure like we see with GPL etc.
Make everything on the web available by default for personal use, but not commercial use. Then have 2 licenses: No, this can't be used for personal use (eg Netflix) and Yes, this can be used for commercial use too. Both should have a modifier for Source must be attributed. Put the creator in control and get out the way. Of course we should allow more fine-grained licenses like we see for source code etc, but the two simple licenses should cover most use cases I think.
- zalew 14y agoMost of what you propose is covered by creative commons. Sadly, in practice, CC is a shitty deal for photography in general.
- pkhamre 14y agoWhy?
- zalew 14y agoThese rants cover the issues pretty well http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/creative-commons-and-why-youre-getting-railed/ http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/creative-co... http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/creative-commons-and-the-case-of-the-hotel-pool-sperm/ http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/creative-co... http://www.powazek.com/2004/02/000372.html http://www.powazek.com/2004/02/000372.html
- klez 14y agoCouldn't the pool article and the nazi newsletter be considered derivative works? If so one could use a ND clause for the license.
- zalew 14y agoif they drew her a mustache or painted the sperm, then it would be derivative.
- AlexHamilton 14y agoCorrect - it's not a derivative showing it alongside an article. Derivative refers to making a change to the work itself to create a new work.
- mcintyre1994 14y agoI guess I was simplifying the issue too much. It could work with adjustments, but I think one of them might be a license modifier for "but contact me first", and due to the reasons you've presented, maybe that should even be a default. That doesn't really remove the friction we have now, and is probably too restrictive. We need something more granular that people can use, and I'm not at all convinced that exists. Hmm.
- zalew 14y ago> a license modifier for "but contact me first", and due to the reasons you've presented, maybe that should even be a default now it's the same as "all rights reserved. joe@example.com", and it is the current default.
- yarrel 14y agoBecause waaaaaaah!