http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: attribution - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:48:06 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/230#post-538 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:49:00 +0000 Fritters 538@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Can someone with some experience teach a new dork? I'm required by my college class to make a book at blurb.com. I'm doing it on art deco themes and want to include explanatory photos. There is a lovely huge group on Flikr that comes up with a creative commons search for commercially available photos. They all have a CC logo but also say All Rights Reserved. I don't remember where but something also said something about correct attribution? </p> <p>A: How do I attribute, in what manner?</p> <p>B: Where in the book do you attribute?</p> <p>C: Who do I attribute? The group or the user name?</p> <p>I'm not making any money on the book, but there will be 2-5 copies printed. Is there anything else I need to know? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-474 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:21:54 +0000 diner dash games 474@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Non-commercial license basically means that you can't us it for profit or any commercial purpose. It may either be Attribution Non-Commercial, Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike or Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-441 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:44:45 +0000 Game Server 441@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Thanks for the information. Let me just clarify this. If something has anon-commercial license then it means that you can't use it for profit purposes? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/201#post-396 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:08:20 +0000 Stefanofazz 396@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello, </p> <p>What sort of attribution and/or credit is required by the artist? And how will I know of his/her specifications? </p> <p>Also, what if the required attribution/credit of the artists is conflicting with the webpage design? I will give an example. A music band uploads a song onto the webpage. A user clicks the song and is diverted to a song page to stream and listen to it. The song page's layout only states the authors name (not band members, band bio, band hisotry etc.. that the author may require as attribution). What if the band requires you to attribute the song to them by placing their band bio, members etc... which conflict with the web page layout?</p> <p>Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!</p> <p>Tnx! :) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/150#post-288 Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:49:08 +0000 nwilliam3 288@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I recently downloaded a Wordpress template from <a href="http://www.wpthemesfree.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wpthemesfree.com/</a> that didn't have any indicators as to what if any licensing applied to it. I found in the code a note from the author to only download the template from one of two sites; the one I downloaded it from and the site: <a href="http://www.wpthemescreator.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wpthemescreator.com/</a>. I went to that site and on it states that all of their templates are licensed Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic. It also states that the authors only requirement for attribution is that the links in the footer are not removed. The problem is the links in the footer are not attribution links but advertisements for SuperbHosting.net. </p> <p>So my question is do I need to retain those advertising links or since they are clearly outside the intent of the license can I replace them with an appropriate attribution? Give that there is no mention of a Creative Commons license anywhere in the work, I kind of wonder if the license on the website is more of scare tactic to prevent the footer links from being removed. Versus an honest attempt and licensing the template. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/135#post-272 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:12:19 +0000 jhsnider 272@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'm wondering to what extent the Creative Commons requirement of “attribution” is equivalent to the standard academic norm against "plagiarism." The academic definition of plagiarism includes use of ideas without attribution. It's not clear to me that the Creative Commons definition of "content" incorporates ideas as a type of content if those ideas are expressed in different words. Please clarify this ambiguity. Perhaps Creative Commons should provide a definition of "content" that more clearly specifies whether ideas are to be included. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-216 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:42:00 +0000 ccmusic 216@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi Kriz, this is a tricky one. In an ideal world every image with CC licensing would be tagged and embedded with the creators details which would be displayed using an app of some fashion when used outside of the creators domain. This sounds like a simple solution, although there will always be issues of ethics and morality in using these images.</p> <p>The only suggestion I can offer would be to create relationships with your most used image creators and cut a deal with them. Not ideal, but it would make the work-flow more efficient. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/87#post-198 Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:14:10 +0000 rbetts 198@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'm fairly new to CC. I'm creating a pamphlet (printed or distributed as a PDF, not on a website) which contains some No Derivatives images. I have three questions:<br /> 1 I need to crop some of these a little, as is typical for printed publications, to fit them into the space available. These croppings are minor adjustments that don't harm the image or significantly change the image - i.e. the key impact and focus of the image remains. May I do so?<br /> 2 Books normally give full credits for images at the beginning or end of the book, and often don't give them with the image itself. This is what I do with other credits. May I do this with CC credited images? Putting credits with each image can impair the artistic impact.<br /> 3 Has anyone some simple examples of full CC credit statements, with sample names, attribution etc., which illustrate exactly what's required. Then I could simply cut and paste and edit, which would save time, but ensure I follow best practice.<br /> Many thanks </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-189 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:13:25 +0000 kriz 189@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>So lately, Ive been looking at the Creative Commons license. Especially, because I am hoping to use some photos in flickr under the CC license. However, even with this license, things are a bit unclear.</p> <p>First off, the attribution part. Flickr says:</p> <blockquote><p> Attribution means:<br /> You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.</p> </blockquote> <p>The CC website says:</p> <blockquote><p> Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).</p> </blockquote> <p>So if I decide to use a CC attribution image on a blog entry I would have to credit the owner of the image. Which is fine. But what happens if I do 15-20 blog topics a day with different images containing the CC attribution licenses. Wouldn't it be overkill to email 20 authors that I will be using their image and wait for their response? Sure I can provide a email template and manually type their email address'.</p> <p>Which leaves me with a few awkward scenarios:<br /> - If they dont reply (due to out of office, email caught in spam filter, etc), does that mean I can not use this image?<br /> - A week from now, I find another image from the same owner. I send the template email again, but for another image. And the next week I do the same thing. Wouldnt this just annoy the owner of the image? I know I would feel annoyed if I saw several emails requesting how I should credit each image.<br /> - These are just a few that I could think of...</p> <p>Theoretically, what if half of the image owners comes back and says "Just make sure you credit my name in font-size 54" or "Credit my name on the footer of your website".</p> <p>I think the attribution license should just be, not in these words: "As long as you credit the owner of the image". Period! Which is Flickr's short definition for this type of license.</p> <p>Second, what constitutes a non-commercial license? What exactly is commercial? What if I am profiting indirectly? Does that go against non-commercial? </p> <p>For example:<br /> If I have a blog that has adverts on the site, obviously, I am making some money. But not because of the image that belongs to somebody else.</p> <p>The CC non-commercial explanation is still in draft form, as you can see here:<br /> <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines</a></p> <p>In conclusion, if I grab a CC non-commercial image and post it on my site that has adverts, affiliate links, etc, am I violating the use of this image? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/77#post-188 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:55:02 +0000 fourstones 188@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>So the question is:</p> <p>Is this page:</p> <p><a href="http://ccmixter.org/files/oldDog/14019" rel="nofollow">http://ccmixter.org/files/oldDog/14019</a></p> <p>in violation of CC license? Note that you have to click through the 'Uses samples from' links to find sources of the sources.</p> <p>Next question is, if a someone on YouTube uses the oldDog's remix and says:</p> <p>Music by oldDog Licensed under Creative Commons Noncommercial Sampling Plus<br /> <a href="http://ccmixter.org/files/oldDog/14019" rel="nofollow">http://ccmixter.org/files/oldDog/14019</a></p> <p>Is that a violation of the CC license?</p> <p>VS </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/77#post-174 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:26:29 +0000 mlinksva 174@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'd guess that C and D should each attribute both A and B. However, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.</p> <p>You might want to check out the following portion of 4(b) from <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode</a></p> <blockquote><p>in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.</p></blockquote> <p>Note that "reasonable manner" needs to be very flexible -- the legal requirement needs to work in any medium a copyrightable (and thus licensable) work might be conveyed in. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/77#post-172 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:38:54 +0000 spinmeister 172@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>just a quick question - and if it’s already been answered somewhere else, I have to apologize.</p> <p>Situation:</p> <p>- original song A is remixed into remix B</p> <p>- and then somebody remixes B into remix C from parts which are clearly derivatives of A (or even just purely from A).</p> <p>- somebody makes a video D featuring remix B</p> <p>Should C give attribution to A and B, or just to B?</p> <p>Should D attribute both A and B, or just B?</p> <p>Thanks in advance! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/42#post-87 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:15:10 +0000 eeewiki 87@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>A few months ago I in good faith borrowed information for a site to redistribute the work of a then-CC licensed dokuwiki at <a href="http://wiki.eeeuser.com/" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.eeeuser.com/</a>. The wiki I'm running is <a href="http://www.eeewiki.org.." rel="nofollow">http://www.eeewiki.org..</a>. I provided a link at the bottom of every page linking to the creator's wiki.</p> <p>After the incident, he removed the CC license from the wiki. I noticed the CC license, seeing as EeePC was open source, I saw nothing wrong with giving users a an ad-free choice to see the docs. Today, I don't believe he knew his new wiki was under this license at the time. However, he argued for a few weeks over attribution, citing the license, however still, it was law speak. </p> <p>I was under a lot of pressure at the time because a tiny minority (10-20) of the site's (at the time) 10k+ users were chastising me over use of licensing and kinda doing the "<a href="http://digg.com/linux_unix/How_to_steal_other_people_s_copyrighted_work">let's get him boys</a>" thing to me. Ah, wisdom of the crowds.</p> <p>This situation pertains to the specific use of DokuWiki's default installation license, Creative Commons (<br /> Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic). By this, I mean a newly installed system will, by default, offer the information under this license w/ a button and code at the bottom of every page.</p> <p>What is the proper way to attribute a Dokuwiki?</p> <p>In a wiki, is it the "Creating party" or the "Every individual creator per article", or..?</p> <p>In this case, What if you attribute the party itself but then the creator orders you to attribute the same content on an individual basis (per user to the article/edits)? What if he refuses to provide the dokuwiki DB dump (in this case, a folder of text files) and insists on pulling the names out per-edit, one by one?</p> <p>Once the creator wiki removes the license, can you keep the content shared previously under CC at the time? Or must you destroy it?</p> <p>Thanks </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/30#post-68 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:05:01 +0000 question 68@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>got this info to me via mail.</p> <p>'medium' refers to the pysical way you're using the work (eg radio, website, CD etc), so the 'reasonable to the medium' provision is supposed to let you vary how you attribute for different distribution methods. So, for example, on net radio you might mention the artists name, and then have a list on a website. Or your example for the nightclub seems appropriate.</p> <p>But attribution in some form remains compulsory - if there is a service that says you can't attribute, then you can't use the work under the CC licence. You'll be in breach of the CC licence.</p> <p>As far as getting more detailed with the attribution requirements - it would be hard to deal with individual case examples like how you should do it in a film etc. It's just too much detail for a licence. But CC has a marking project that sets out best practice guidelines about how you should attribute in different mediums (<a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking)" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking)</a>. Does that help? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/30#post-64 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:03:36 +0000 jam 64@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>From CC.au license<br /> -attribute the original author in any work, derivative work or collection that you distribute. The attribution may be provided in any reasonable manner, but as far as is reasonable to the medium...</p> <p>thought:<br /> attribution in the credits of a film might have been created to make sure the artists could be compensated for their work through a guild, possibly? what percentage of an audience reads the credits of a film? What about the time and placement of the creativity within the film? Most films have a q-sheet (that is separate to the film) that lets the rights authority know what was played when and by who- so royalties can be distributed. Would this q-sheet need to be part of the attribution as the most minimum form of reasonable attribution?</p> <p>my point is that a lot of mediums have no form of reasonable attribution. Maybe a link from the license could list different ways to attribute, a set of standards for each medium to make sure creators are attributed fairly. </p>