Home – New Forums Other discussions Question on the creative commons license

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #979580
    BrettM33
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,372
    Up
    0
    ::

    Just wondering if a site is getting content from users under the Creative Commons license, such as this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

    If the content is then edited by someone who then owns the content? Can the original copyright owner ask them to remove it? If not, can they ask them to remove their name from it.

    Thanks!

    #1115373
    Past-Member
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,815
    Up
    0
    ::

    Creative commons is for non commercial use only.
    If it’s a commercial site in any form it should be taken down.

    No-one can just take or use someone’s work. It’s only if someone offers it to be used under the creative commons licences under certain conditions.

    Also best to read more about copyright at
    http://copyright.org.au/


    The short link for this page is http://creativecommons.org.au/licences.

    Offering your work under a Creative Commons licence does not mean giving up your copyright. It means allowing more liberal use of your material, but only on certain conditions.
    Each Creative Commons licence comes with the same baseline user rights and restrictions. These allow the material to be copied, distributed and reused, at a minimum in its current form, for non-commercial purposes, and as long as the original creator/s are credited.

    .

    #1115374
    JacquiPryor
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,344
    Up
    0
    ::

    I haven’t really used Creative Commons before but the Link Brett posted does allow for use commercially, yet, clearly the information Karen posted discusses non-commercial use.

    In any event, if you are ‘adapting’ someone else’s copyright – assuming they have allowed commercial use of their ‘work’ – then according to the link posted the original creator should still be attributed.

    Generally speaking, the copyright holder is the person with the right to make an adaptation of the work and authorise it to others – so, “editing” existing content could still see that original creator recognised as the owner. It kind of depends on the extent of change made etc (and, no, there’s no “if I amend this by 10% I’ll be safe rule)… If you edit in such a way where you are still using the original works, or a substantial (important) part thereof you would need their permission and/or to attribute the original creator appropriately.

    These things can sometimes be a little ‘case by case’ so please note the above as ‘general’ information…

    #1115375
    Greg_M
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,691
    Up
    0
    ::

    My only experience of this license is through the use of open source software, I always thought the intent was that you could use it pretty much as you pleased as long as the source code was kept open and if you modified it (the code or whatever) you used appropriate attribution to the original source.

    I think it’s designed to keep the source open, you can’t close it down by modifying an open source and trying to call it proprietary, otherwise there’d be a lot of stuff out there that MS and others would have snaffled up and put a license on years ago.

    #1115376
    BrettM33
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,372
    Up
    0
    ::

    Thanks for the information guys. I’ll try and explain a bit more about the situation.

    The site is built upon user questions/answers and the content posted by users is covered by the creative commons license according to their FAQ.

    Say I posted some content to the site (a question); this was then edited by someone else on the site, but it still contained attributions to myself and also a note that it was edited by “said person”.

    With the above in mind, who now “owns” the content? Can I ask it be removed or since it’s been edited can they deny it be removed?

    The content was edited in a way that still contained my original content, but was edited in a way that a lot of the content was removed and hence no longer relayed the question/point I was trying to get across.

    Now, if I can’t ask it be removed, could I request that my name be removed from said content? I ask because it seems I could going from this excerpt from the license page..

    In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from the work when used in a derivative or collective they don’t like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators “moral rights” which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of the licensor’s work.

    The above was found under “Other Rights -> Moral Rights”.

    estim8, post: 129543 wrote:
    My only experience of this license is through the use of open source software, I always thought the intent was that you could use it pretty much as you pleased as long as the source code was kept open and if you modified it (the code or whatever) you used appropriate attribution to the original source.

    I think it’s designed to keep the source open, you can’t close it down by modifying an open source and trying to call it proprietary, otherwise there’d be a lot of stuff out there that MS and others would have snaffled up and put a license on years ago.

    Is software licensed under the CCL? I always have found that they are usually licensed under either MIT or the GPL license.

    #1115377
    Greg_M
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,691
    Up
    0
    ::
    CondorCreative, post: 129559 wrote:
    Is software licensed under the CCL? I always have found that they are usually licensed under either MIT or the GPL license.

    Got me, if all else fails read the instructions, sorry about that.

    #1115378
    BrettM33
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,372
    Up
    0
    ::
    estim8, post: 129562 wrote:
    Got me, if all else fails read the instructions, sorry about that.

    Haha no problem. ;)

    #1115379
    JacquiPryor
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,344
    Up
    0
    ::

    Hi Brett,

    Would you like to PM me the ‘site’ you are referring to, as I am suspecting you don’t wish to share here?

    The answer at this stage is “it depends”. Whether your original question is an ‘original work’ that counts as copyright is questionable to begin with.. it’s possible, depending on the particular site in question they own copyright to the entire content of their site – made up of questions/answers, including yours etc.

    It’s a bit tricky to say without really seeing the site in question and their info – but, I can’t see any reason you can’t ask for your original question to be removed (or remove it yourself?), or, at the very least your name removed. If you feel the ‘edits’ have changed the context or your original comment/question, surely the site would be willing to rectify that?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.