Wow, what a lot of food for thought! My head is still spinning and I know that there is a lot "out there" that I haven't even begun to sift through.
I read about the different licenses and then started thinking about what each entails. First of all, I didn't realize how involved "Creative Commons" were with the different licenses and layers involved.
(retrieved from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/) Initially, I thought a "Creative Commons" license was separate from "Copyright" when in fact it is used in conjunction with "Copyright". It helps that you can find the right license for you whether it is the most stringent of CC licence (Attribution-Non Commercial - No Dirivs CC BY-NC-ND) to the least restrictive license (Attribution CC).
What has intrigued me the most when looking at "Creative Commons" were the issues around non-commercial use of someones work and the effects of someone disrespectfully altering a piece of work and attributing the original author with the new work.
As far as the first issue, if you have advertisements on your site, does that mean your site is considered commercial? I have posted this question on "Twitter" with the hashtags of #OLTD505 and #creativecommons, but have yet to have a response. I did however, find a blog post on Bobbi Newman's website, "Librarian By Day". (retrieved from: http://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentations/) Bobbi shares a personal example of what happened to her during the making and sharing of a one of her presentations. She makes reference to how the person who "owned" a photo she used in her presentation, changed their CC license and then accused her of using it on a commercial site. The person demanded that she remove the photo from her presentation. The person thought that because there was an "upgrade" option on the "slideshare" site she had her presentation on that, that meant her site was for commercial use. I think that there needs to be some work done to clarify what IS a commercial site so that it is very clear what is considered commercial and what is not. Also, if someone changes their CC license, shouldn't there be some kind of notification to those who have used the said work that it has changed? I found on the Creative Commons site (retrieved from: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial) twelve proposals to change the 4.0 version of the noncommercial license suit. These range from giving more detail of the definition of what noncommercial is to totally eliminating or "re-branding" the noncommercial license to not use the CC name or stand on its own. It will be interesting to see the end result of the revamping of the noncommercial language in the licenses.
The second issue, is, if someone changes my work and I don't like what they have done but they continue to use my name attached to it, is a little frightening to me. I find this a little unnerving as there could be ramifications associated with a piece of work that has been changed where it could be embarrassing or unprofessional. Dr. Charles Severance makes reference to this exact issue on his blog, "Creative Commons Has Failed Me and My Heart Is Breaking", retrieved from: http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2013/04/creative-commons-has-failed-me-and-my-heart-is-breaking/. "Dr. Chuck" had issues with a "spammer" who abused the use of a video he had made. He "doesn't want people to simply clone (his) material on competitive sites as link and search bait." "Dr. Chuck" has decided to go with "copyright" or "Attribution-Non Commercial - No Dirivs CC BY-NC-ND" instead of "Attribution CC". I can understand Dr. Chuck's indignation and that he wants to share his work and have people use his work as their own, but on the same token use it with respect and for enriching others knowledge.
As I have pondered these two issues and some of what they entail, I have come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't matter how clear the descriptions of what is commercial or noncommercial or what license you use to enable respectful use of your work, there will be, unfortunately, others who will abuse those privileges regardless of the openness or safeguards in place. I think the big question that needs to be asked is if a person was willing to take the chance that there may be misunderstandings and that there will be people out there who will continue to abuse any system that is in place. Fortunately, there are more people who are respectful and grateful for the openness and sharing of ideas and materials that the "Creative Commons" brings about. I am excited about works being "open" and the future of the amazing things that are happening and will happen as we travel on this journey of education for everyone, no matter where you live or how much money you have.
I read about the different licenses and then started thinking about what each entails. First of all, I didn't realize how involved "Creative Commons" were with the different licenses and layers involved.
(retrieved from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/) Initially, I thought a "Creative Commons" license was separate from "Copyright" when in fact it is used in conjunction with "Copyright". It helps that you can find the right license for you whether it is the most stringent of CC licence (Attribution-Non Commercial - No Dirivs CC BY-NC-ND) to the least restrictive license (Attribution CC).
What has intrigued me the most when looking at "Creative Commons" were the issues around non-commercial use of someones work and the effects of someone disrespectfully altering a piece of work and attributing the original author with the new work.
As far as the first issue, if you have advertisements on your site, does that mean your site is considered commercial? I have posted this question on "Twitter" with the hashtags of #OLTD505 and #creativecommons, but have yet to have a response. I did however, find a blog post on Bobbi Newman's website, "Librarian By Day". (retrieved from: http://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentations/) Bobbi shares a personal example of what happened to her during the making and sharing of a one of her presentations. She makes reference to how the person who "owned" a photo she used in her presentation, changed their CC license and then accused her of using it on a commercial site. The person demanded that she remove the photo from her presentation. The person thought that because there was an "upgrade" option on the "slideshare" site she had her presentation on that, that meant her site was for commercial use. I think that there needs to be some work done to clarify what IS a commercial site so that it is very clear what is considered commercial and what is not. Also, if someone changes their CC license, shouldn't there be some kind of notification to those who have used the said work that it has changed? I found on the Creative Commons site (retrieved from: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial) twelve proposals to change the 4.0 version of the noncommercial license suit. These range from giving more detail of the definition of what noncommercial is to totally eliminating or "re-branding" the noncommercial license to not use the CC name or stand on its own. It will be interesting to see the end result of the revamping of the noncommercial language in the licenses.
The second issue, is, if someone changes my work and I don't like what they have done but they continue to use my name attached to it, is a little frightening to me. I find this a little unnerving as there could be ramifications associated with a piece of work that has been changed where it could be embarrassing or unprofessional. Dr. Charles Severance makes reference to this exact issue on his blog, "Creative Commons Has Failed Me and My Heart Is Breaking", retrieved from: http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2013/04/creative-commons-has-failed-me-and-my-heart-is-breaking/. "Dr. Chuck" had issues with a "spammer" who abused the use of a video he had made. He "doesn't want people to simply clone (his) material on competitive sites as link and search bait." "Dr. Chuck" has decided to go with "copyright" or "Attribution-Non Commercial - No Dirivs CC BY-NC-ND" instead of "Attribution CC". I can understand Dr. Chuck's indignation and that he wants to share his work and have people use his work as their own, but on the same token use it with respect and for enriching others knowledge.
As I have pondered these two issues and some of what they entail, I have come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't matter how clear the descriptions of what is commercial or noncommercial or what license you use to enable respectful use of your work, there will be, unfortunately, others who will abuse those privileges regardless of the openness or safeguards in place. I think the big question that needs to be asked is if a person was willing to take the chance that there may be misunderstandings and that there will be people out there who will continue to abuse any system that is in place. Fortunately, there are more people who are respectful and grateful for the openness and sharing of ideas and materials that the "Creative Commons" brings about. I am excited about works being "open" and the future of the amazing things that are happening and will happen as we travel on this journey of education for everyone, no matter where you live or how much money you have.