I dont think they really want to create licenses that are for a specific type of media/work, unless for some reason there are a unique set of requirements of videobloggers that dont apply to others such as podcasters, musicians etc. I dont think thats the case.
Clarification in some areas is needed, yes, there are a lot of complaints about non-commercial being poorly-defined. There was an attempt 1 year ago to post a draft of guidelines as to what non-commercial meant, I am still in the middle of studing it and the subsequent discussion on the cc mailing list. At this stage it does seem like theres a need for vloggers to help shape this, not least because there seem to be quite a surprising amount of people discussing stuff on their list that totally hate the entire non-commercial clause and dont see the point in it! (some of these come from the free software movement which begins to explain why they dont see why non-commercial is so important to some creators) I will post more on their guidelines and how we might be able to help over the coming weekend. I have not found one particular creative commons license that is totally dominant in the vlogosphere, Ive seen quite a number of vlogs that use traditional copyright, and quite a lot who use cc licenses that dont allow derivatives. I havent studied what the uptake of 'share alike' cc clause is amoungst vloggers, probably high. The fact that its interesting/surprising to some that creative commons licenses allows transcoding, rehosting, copying etc, means we've definately wandered off the path slightly over the years, in terms of what some people have come to see creative commons as representing. I agree totally that this stuff should be done in a sane way that encourages the guides, search engines etc, to 'play fair'. If we owe it to them to clarify what rights they are being granted, they definately owe it to us to ask if in doubt about what rights we're giving them. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Maybe we should concentrate on where they fail to reflect what we > expect and then maybe see about getting them updated or possibly > proposing a creative commons videoblogger's license to encourage fair > and proper use and discourage misuse. > > Am I right in that most videobloggers allow non-commercial use as long > as it contains attribution. Maybe that's a good place to start. > > It does represent many of the points I mentioned originally, but it > does also allow for transcoding and/or rehosting interestingly > enough... as long as it is for non-commercial purposes. > > I really think moving forward we owe it to new players like > Network2.tv to give a clear outline of what they can do without asking > our individual permission because ultimately such intermediaries can > really help us. > > Where would the vlogosphere be without revlogging, guides, directories > and search engines? > > The thing is I think Creative Commons is advanced enough and > implimented in a widespread enough fassion in things like RSS, media > RSS and microstandards that we can really start using it. > > -Mike > > On 1/5/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a great discussion and I'm pleased it's occurring as a result > > of the MyHeavy.com incident. As with many ethical questions that > > involve both legal and social criteria, one can use the `reasonable > > person' concept to assess the situation. For example, it's clearly > > wrong (and illegal) for me to sell for commercial profit someone > > else's CC licensed video that states no commercial reuse. But can I > > resell that video for fund-raising for a non-profit? The reasonable > > person would say no. Can I repackage it and distribute it if it's a > > very small part of the total video content of a commercially sold > > aggregation? The reasonable person would say no. The responsibility > > is on the aggregator, collector, or re-distributor to get permission > > for re-use and cannot be placed on the creator. Copyright law (and > > ethics) states that the creator owns his material for some period > > (too long, probably). For any business to assume they can profit in > > any way from the work of someone else, no matter how small, is > > illegal and unethical. It doesn't matter how easily co-opting > > someone else's work is, the assumption has to be that you don't do > > it. If I were to enter my neighbor's house without permission and > > take something and the cops showed up to arrest me, how well would my > > defense work if it was merely, "the door was open and there was no > > sign saying I couldn't help myself." It wouldn't. The culturally > > understood norm is that what's not yours is not yours and you must > > get permission to use it. To put the responsibility on the creator > > to blacklist everyone he doesn't want to grant access is too onerous, > > it's too costly. > > > > -David > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" > > <BillCammack@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So ideally the starting point should be that everyone knows, and > > > > should assume, that they have very limited rights to your work, > > unless > > > > they see a creative commons license that gives them extra rights. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > + 1,000! :D > > > > > > -- > > > Bill C. > > > http://ems.blip.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
