Most visitors online was 1660 , on 12 Dec 2020
-
Important Executive Director Announcement from the NAWCC The NAWCC Board of Directors is pleased to announce that Mr. Rory McEvoy has been named Executive Director of the NAWCC. Rory is an internationally renowned horological scholar and comes to the NAWCC with strong credentials that solidly align with our education, fundraising, and membership growth objectives. He has a postgraduate degree in the conservation and restoration of antique clocks from West Dean College, and throughout his career, he has had the opportunity to handle some of the world’s most important horological artifacts, including longitude timekeepers by Harrison, Kendall, and Mudge.
Rory formerly worked as Curator of Horology at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, where his role included day-to-day management of research and digitization projects, writing, public speaking, conservation, convening conferences, exhibition work, and development of acquisition/disposal and collection care policies. In addition, he has worked as a horological specialist at Bonhams in London, where he cataloged and handled many rare timepieces and built important relationships with collectors, buyers, and sellers. Most recently, Rory has used his talents to share his love of horology at the university level by teaching horological theory, history, and the practical repair and making of clocks and watches at Birmingham City University.
Rory is a British citizen and currently resides in the UK. Pre-COVID-19, Rory and his wife, Kaai, visited HQ in Columbia, Pennsylvania, where they met with staff, spent time in the Museum and Library & Research Center, and toured the area. Rory and Kaai will be relocating to the area as soon as the immigration challenges and travel restrictions due to COVID-19 permit.
Some of you may already be familiar with Rory as he is also a well-known author and lecturer. His recent publications include the book Harrison Decoded: Towards a Perfect Pendulum Clock, which he edited with Jonathan Betts, and the article “George Graham and the Orrery” in the journal Nuncius.
Until Rory’s relocation to the United States is complete, he will be working closely with an on-boarding team assembled by the NAWCC Board of Directors to introduce him to the opportunities and challenges before us and to ensure a smooth transition. Rory will be participating in strategic and financial planning immediately, which will allow him to hit the ground running when he arrives in Columbia
You can read more about Rory McEvoy and this exciting announcement in the upcoming March/April issue of the Watch & Clock Bulletin.
Please join the entire Board and staff in welcoming Rory to the NAWCC community.
Message Board rules
- Thread starter kirklox
- Start date
I believe it says what it means.
If you post material on the board you transfer Copyright to the NAWCC and the Message Board.
Clearly you can create another expression in a different place but you could not, for instance, cut and paste the contents from here to another location or publication. The reason you can create another expression is that you cannot plagiarize yourself.
You are certainly free to disagree with the statement and might decide not to post with this copyright contract in place. If enough people share that position, the rule might be changed.
If you post material on the board you transfer Copyright to the NAWCC and the Message Board.
Clearly you can create another expression in a different place but you could not, for instance, cut and paste the contents from here to another location or publication. The reason you can create another expression is that you cannot plagiarize yourself.
You are certainly free to disagree with the statement and might decide not to post with this copyright contract in place. If enough people share that position, the rule might be changed.
I would never post any Horological Related Material if I knew that the NAWCC did not recognize my Copyright of the Information.
If you look at many of John Hubby's posts you will find that he demands respect for HIS COPYRIGHT. I am positive Fortunat also considers his posts as His CopyRight to give freely with CREDIT to HIM.
If you look at many of John Hubby's posts you will find that he demands respect for HIS COPYRIGHT. I am positive Fortunat also considers his posts as His CopyRight to give freely with CREDIT to HIM.
Copyright is unrelated to credit. Copyright carries control of an expression. Failure to credit is plagiarism.
Tom: There is at least on case on this MB that someone linked to some of MY PICTURES and they were not properly credited. Afterwhich John Hubby gave credit to the pictures and where they came from. That is just one of the problems that your Copyright does not address. The other point is that I would never give Sole Copyright to the NAWCC. If I did that I could not use it anywhere else without permission.
This is not a public use type Copyright, you are telling the members that the NAWCC owns their WORKS.
This is not a public use type Copyright, you are telling the members that the NAWCC owns their WORKS.
Perhaps the key to clarifying this is to understand the difference between Publishing copyright and ownership rights.
Does this makes sense to folks?
If a person uses the NAWCC MB as a medium to facilitate publication of info, that version is copyright protected. In other words, no one (even the poster) can transfer the verbatim content to another site, venue or medium.
That said, the ownership of the content is still the property of the owner or poster of the content.
As an example, I could post my pictures of all of the 16S Waltham balance staffs on the NAWCC MB. I could not then transfer all of that particular thread to a CD format and sell it at Marts. I could, however, create a CD of all of my pictures (since I own them) if it wasn't simply a lift (save as html) of the MB content.
To further expand the example. Some day, the NAWCC might want to collect and sell an archive of their MB at a National Convention. A Best of the NAWCC MB... Horoligical Hits... whatever the title, if it is a format that is directly a publishing duplicate of the original NAWCC MB, aren't they within their rights to do so?
Is this the type of copyright and ownership strategy that can work? I'd hate to see all of us get in a huge squabble because we can't agree on what seems like common sense. i.e. Posters can share info without fear of loosing ownership, and the NAWCC can create a MB that is protected from someone thieving and profiting from their investment.
Does this makes sense to folks?
If a person uses the NAWCC MB as a medium to facilitate publication of info, that version is copyright protected. In other words, no one (even the poster) can transfer the verbatim content to another site, venue or medium.
That said, the ownership of the content is still the property of the owner or poster of the content.
As an example, I could post my pictures of all of the 16S Waltham balance staffs on the NAWCC MB. I could not then transfer all of that particular thread to a CD format and sell it at Marts. I could, however, create a CD of all of my pictures (since I own them) if it wasn't simply a lift (save as html) of the MB content.
To further expand the example. Some day, the NAWCC might want to collect and sell an archive of their MB at a National Convention. A Best of the NAWCC MB... Horoligical Hits... whatever the title, if it is a format that is directly a publishing duplicate of the original NAWCC MB, aren't they within their rights to do so?
Is this the type of copyright and ownership strategy that can work? I'd hate to see all of us get in a huge squabble because we can't agree on what seems like common sense. i.e. Posters can share info without fear of loosing ownership, and the NAWCC can create a MB that is protected from someone thieving and profiting from their investment.
Mike: You almost have it correct except there is no difference between a Publishers Copyrigt and a Ownership Copyrght. It used to be that a Publisher would Copyright a Works and then when that was to expire the Author would Copyright it.
The other aspect is that I host all my own Pictures and those that I have received permission to use. I have allowed NAWCC to have Free use of those images by linking to them and Crediting the Source. This does not give them the Copyright of those images, just the temporary use of them with Credits. When I host your pictures it is the same. They do not and never will belong to me. Your POSTS are also not mine and any use of them would require me to get permission to use.
That is the same with Kirx Klox Special Project. Every item that is listed is credited to the author, and I have and maintain full records of it.
The other aspect is that I host all my own Pictures and those that I have received permission to use. I have allowed NAWCC to have Free use of those images by linking to them and Crediting the Source. This does not give them the Copyright of those images, just the temporary use of them with Credits. When I host your pictures it is the same. They do not and never will belong to me. Your POSTS are also not mine and any use of them would require me to get permission to use.
That is the same with Kirx Klox Special Project. Every item that is listed is credited to the author, and I have and maintain full records of it.
These new rules do not apply to this current board, right? I know I never knowingly gave consent to this organization to hold the copyrights to my images nor content of postings.
Will there be a place to "opt out" of migrating current posts where copyright laws are not infringed, to the new board where these copyrights are stripped?
Please do not transfer my postings to the new board as I do not want to lose my rights to my property.
Will there be a place to "opt out" of migrating current posts where copyright laws are not infringed, to the new board where these copyrights are stripped?
Please do not transfer my postings to the new board as I do not want to lose my rights to my property.
I don't know if the words are what the drafters intended or not. However, Mike's explanations agrees with my understanding of what the words say.
If you publish something here, you assert that you have the right to transfer the copyright to that material to the NAWCC. Note that only the expression is copyrighted not the meaning or content. If the content is your own work, you are free to express it differently elsewhere. However, you are not free to copy the expression and publish it elsewhere.
As Mike pointed out this form of transfer allows the NAWCC to publish compendia and other related forms of the material. I think it also allows the development of abstracts and summaries. All of these derivative expressions would also be the property of the NAWCC because they were created by the NAWCC. Whenever derivatives are produced they must give full credit to the original authors of the material. You do not surrender authorship, only copyright.
I, personally, do not find this particularly onerous. Anyone who feels they would need to grant permission for the NAWCC to publish a "Best of the Message Board" column in the Bulletin, for instance, might disagree.
It is also possible that I misundertstand the language. I have not discussed it with the authors.
If you publish something here, you assert that you have the right to transfer the copyright to that material to the NAWCC. Note that only the expression is copyrighted not the meaning or content. If the content is your own work, you are free to express it differently elsewhere. However, you are not free to copy the expression and publish it elsewhere.
As Mike pointed out this form of transfer allows the NAWCC to publish compendia and other related forms of the material. I think it also allows the development of abstracts and summaries. All of these derivative expressions would also be the property of the NAWCC because they were created by the NAWCC. Whenever derivatives are produced they must give full credit to the original authors of the material. You do not surrender authorship, only copyright.
I, personally, do not find this particularly onerous. Anyone who feels they would need to grant permission for the NAWCC to publish a "Best of the Message Board" column in the Bulletin, for instance, might disagree.
It is also possible that I misundertstand the language. I have not discussed it with the authors.
I might swallow it with Dual Ownership but not this. If this stands I would demand all my posts be removed. I do not grant the NAWCC sole Copyright of my works. As far as ownership and the ability to post my topics elsewhere that would be a contract breaker, also. As far as special research forums, some of these rules would be necessary.
If this rule stands I will not register on the new MB and will demand all my posts be removed.
If this rule stands I will not register on the new MB and will demand all my posts be removed.
I have asked the authors to comment on this thread.
Just a technical point, but the reference to an item that is elswhere would not constitute publishing it here as I read the language. Thus a picture hosted elsewhere would not transfer the image. An image that was uploaded would be transferred I believe.
In general items posted here become threads that contain contributions by many authors. I am not sure how anyone except the NAWCC could assert ownership of one of the threads or copyright of it.
I think the current language in the rule may have arisen from the observation that whole threads have been copied from this message board and posted elsewhere.
Just a technical point, but the reference to an item that is elswhere would not constitute publishing it here as I read the language. Thus a picture hosted elsewhere would not transfer the image. An image that was uploaded would be transferred I believe.
In general items posted here become threads that contain contributions by many authors. I am not sure how anyone except the NAWCC could assert ownership of one of the threads or copyright of it.
I think the current language in the rule may have arisen from the observation that whole threads have been copied from this message board and posted elsewhere.
If you ask me, this is a fairly meaningles rule.
If Tom copies some of his work from awco.org into a thread on the MB, he would still be free to do the same thing again on Web-Horology.
As far as that goes, if I am going to make a post to the MB that I may want to replicate elsewhere, I could first enter it into a document on my PC and then paste that to the MB, and from that point on be able to paste from my original anywhere I like.
If Tom copies some of his work from awco.org into a thread on the MB, he would still be free to do the same thing again on Web-Horology.
As far as that goes, if I am going to make a post to the MB that I may want to replicate elsewhere, I could first enter it into a document on my PC and then paste that to the MB, and from that point on be able to paste from my original anywhere I like.
The Copyright rule as it is written gives Sole Ownership to the NAWCC. I do not believe that is good, and causes many problems for the future. In the past it was quite common to have entire threads deleted without notification. That also happened to all the image files that were stored on here at one time. It is also quite common for members here to receive Emails of targeted Threads. Many times images that I have hosted have appeared on other venues without credit. I believe that if I write something here or on any venue it belongs to me and I can reproduce it anywhere.
Suppose the NAWCC message board administration decides to lock and delete a thread. Does their copyright preclude others from reposting the thread elsewhere?
I think the copyright notice is badly written.
Doing a Google search with an argument of "copyright rules message board" will give you many examples of what others are using. I haven't found any as arcane as ours.
I like the way this site has their copyright and use rules worded. In the "How we Manage & Use Posts" section, their non-exclusive, royalty free...etc., use by them makes a lot more sense.
Virgin Island Moving Center Message Board.
Ralph
Doing a Google search with an argument of "copyright rules message board" will give you many examples of what others are using. I haven't found any as arcane as ours.
I like the way this site has their copyright and use rules worded. In the "How we Manage & Use Posts" section, their non-exclusive, royalty free...etc., use by them makes a lot more sense.
Virgin Island Moving Center Message Board.
Ralph
Ralph: I agree with your statement and suggestion; I would like to point out a fact that you could add; "The NAWCC reserves the right to reproduce the contents of these forums in a condensed and edited version for Publications in the Bulletin or Mart and will always give Credit to the Various Authors." Any Images should be treated seperately and permissions requested for use.
As a professional photographer, I value the copyrights to my images. I have posted hundreds of images here. They are all hosted elsewhere, but this rule and this discussion scares the heck out of me. I have gladly granted permission for the NAWCC to use my images in their publications many times over the years. However, I would urge the NAWCC to be very careful of publishing or repurposing any of my images without my expressed written permission, whether I have posted/hosted them here or somewhere else.
There is a lot of recent precedent case law regarding copyright of publicly posted images. I would urge the NAWCC look into changing this policy. I will not publish any more images on this site until this rule is clarified or changed.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no question in my mind that the "copyright rules" section needs to be clarified further.
1. It is my impression that the vat majority of contributors to this Message Board (or any other MB for that matter) would agree that the sole copyright to any THREAD on a message board should be owned by the operator of the message board.
2. I also believe that few of us would objects if the operator of a message board chooses to republish a thread (or part of a thread) in other form or other media themselves (like e.g. a best of the MB column in the Bulletin or as a compilation on a CD) the MB operator should have the right to do so.
3. I have however some doubt that the overwhellming majority of us would be equally enthusiastic if NAWCC were to "sell" (or license their right to use these threadts to a third party.
4. An even larger portion of us would probably object if NAWCC were to use a single individual contribution (be it verbal or image) taken out of its thread and publish it in a NAWCC publication without clearance of the author.
5. A yet larger opposition would object to NAWCC selling to third parties the right to use individual contributions.
6. Finally there is little doubt in my mind that the majority of contributors would find a rule that (at least in theory) would prohibit the author from reusing his individual contribution to a thread in another non-NAWCC-MB context. Besides beeing morally/ethically questionable such a exclusive definition of copyright for the benefit of NAWCC is not practical, feasable and enforcable. It clearly makes little sense for a Bulletin borad.
I hope Tom and his team will let the experts come up with a better wording.
It the past NAWCC was not careful enough to secure copyrights to materials it published. For many years the copyright for published Bulletin articles remained with the authors, making it even questionable if NAWCC had the right to republish these articles on its website or in CD editions of past Bulletin volumes.
Clearly NAWCC must secure the right to reuse the content of the MB threads into the future, also in forms not forseen today.
On the other hand a solution should be found that allows the inddividual authors to reuse their individual contributions in different context. In other words, probably both author and NAWCC should have non-exclusive rights to reuse the individual contributions.
Past images are not a problem, they were never "ON" this MB, but the future MB will be different. I would assume that many of the images (and some of the texts) that will be posted have been used by their authors elsewhere before (even on "competing" MBs
-) ) to make ure underline a particular point. To quietly assume that the author wants to "give up" any right to reuse his work elsewhere if he posts it here makes no sense.
Just my opinion. But we should try to get a reasonable resolution to this conflict befor the migration to the new board.
1. It is my impression that the vat majority of contributors to this Message Board (or any other MB for that matter) would agree that the sole copyright to any THREAD on a message board should be owned by the operator of the message board.
2. I also believe that few of us would objects if the operator of a message board chooses to republish a thread (or part of a thread) in other form or other media themselves (like e.g. a best of the MB column in the Bulletin or as a compilation on a CD) the MB operator should have the right to do so.
3. I have however some doubt that the overwhellming majority of us would be equally enthusiastic if NAWCC were to "sell" (or license their right to use these threadts to a third party.
4. An even larger portion of us would probably object if NAWCC were to use a single individual contribution (be it verbal or image) taken out of its thread and publish it in a NAWCC publication without clearance of the author.
5. A yet larger opposition would object to NAWCC selling to third parties the right to use individual contributions.
6. Finally there is little doubt in my mind that the majority of contributors would find a rule that (at least in theory) would prohibit the author from reusing his individual contribution to a thread in another non-NAWCC-MB context. Besides beeing morally/ethically questionable such a exclusive definition of copyright for the benefit of NAWCC is not practical, feasable and enforcable. It clearly makes little sense for a Bulletin borad.
I hope Tom and his team will let the experts come up with a better wording.
It the past NAWCC was not careful enough to secure copyrights to materials it published. For many years the copyright for published Bulletin articles remained with the authors, making it even questionable if NAWCC had the right to republish these articles on its website or in CD editions of past Bulletin volumes.
Clearly NAWCC must secure the right to reuse the content of the MB threads into the future, also in forms not forseen today.
On the other hand a solution should be found that allows the inddividual authors to reuse their individual contributions in different context. In other words, probably both author and NAWCC should have non-exclusive rights to reuse the individual contributions.
Past images are not a problem, they were never "ON" this MB, but the future MB will be different. I would assume that many of the images (and some of the texts) that will be posted have been used by their authors elsewhere before (even on "competing" MBs
-) ) to make ure underline a particular point. To quietly assume that the author wants to "give up" any right to reuse his work elsewhere if he posts it here makes no sense.Just my opinion. But we should try to get a reasonable resolution to this conflict befor the migration to the new board.
Speaking of experts, take it from the picture hosting web site flickr.com, which allows users to "opt in" to one of 6 levels of copyright, as follows:
Creative Commons Licenses
The following are the six current license choices available from our choose a license application ... shown by name along the license characteristics that accompany them.
Name Characteristics
Attribution
Attribution-NoDerivs
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
Attribution-NonCommercial
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Attribution-ShareAlike
Questions for people thinking about applying a Creative Commons license to their work
How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work?
For online works, you apply a Creative Commons license to a work by selecting the license that suits your preferences. Once you have selected your license, and if you are applying it to an online work, follow the instructions to include the html code in your work. This code will automatically generate the “Some Rights Reserved” button and a statement that your work is licensed under a Creative Commons license, or a “No Rights Reserved” button if you choose to dedicate your work to the public domain. The button is designed to act as a notice to people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed under the applicable Creative Commons license. The html code will also include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines.
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to an offline work?
Yes. For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with a statement such as “This work is licensed under the Creative Commons [insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit [insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.” or insert the applicable license buttons with the same statement and URL link.
The only difference between applying a Creative Commons license to an offline work and applying it to an online work is that offline works will not include the metadata and, consequently, will not be identified via Creative Commons-customized search engines.
How does a Creative Commons license operate?
A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.
Creative Commons licenses give you the ability to dictate how others may exercise your copyright rights—such as the right of others to copy your work, make derivative works or adaptations of your work, to distribute your work and/or make money from your work. They do not give you the ability to restrict anything that is otherwise permitted by exceptions or limitations to copyright—including, importantly, fair use or fair dealing—nor do they give you the ability to control anything that is not protected by copyright law, such as facts and ideas.
Creative Commons licenses attach to the work and authorize everyone who comes in contact with the work to use it consistent with the license. This means that if Bob has a copy of your Creative Commons-licensed work, Bob can give a copy to Carol and Carol will be authorized to use the work consistent with the Creative Commons license. You then have a license agreement separately with both Bob and Carol.
Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code). You don’t need to sign anything to get a Creative Commons license—just select your license at our ‘Publish’ page.
One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.
What things should I think about before I apply a Creative Commons license to my work?
We have set out some things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work here
Which Creative Commons license should I choose?
You should choose the license that meets your preferences. The license is a statement as to what others may do with your work, so you should select a license that matches what you are happy for others to do with your work. You can find an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here.
You can find out information about how our licenses have been applied by other people to text, audio, images, video and educational works.
You can also participate in our email discussion lists and/or review the discussion archives to see if our community is able to respond to your questions and concerns and/or has already addressed them.
Finally, you can also consult with a lawyer to obtain advice on the best license for your needs. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer.
What if I change my mind?
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
Do I need to sign something or register to obtain a Creative Commons license?
No. Creative Commons licenses are designed to be applied to your work and to be binding upon people who use your work based on their notice of the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” (or “No Rights Reserved” in the case of the public domain dedication) button and the statement that the work is Creative Commons-licensed.
We do not keep track of or a register of which creative works have been licensed under a Creative Commons license. We make the licenses, code and tools available for you to use or not as you wish.
What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/metadata do?
Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).
The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.
The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law.
The metadata describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through customized search engines.
I am in a band; can I use Creative Commons licenses but still collect statutory royalties such as under statutory licenses for public performances?
Yes, so long as you choose a “NonCommercial” license option (ie. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) because under these licenses you reserve the right to collect royalties under statutory or compulsory licenses for commercial use of your work. Whether, as a practical matter, you can collect these royalties, depends on which country you are in (check out the answer to the next question).
Under the Creative Commons licenses that permit other people to make commercial use of your work (ie. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives), the licensor waives the right to collect these royalties.
I am a member of a collecting society, can I use Creative Commons licenses?
You need to check with your society. Currently, many of the collecting societies in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Taiwan and the Netherlands take an assignment of rights (or in France what is called a “mandate” of rights that nonetheless has the same effect practically as an assignment) from you in present and future works (so that they effectively become the owner of these rights) and manage them for you. So if you are already a member of a collecting society in one of these jurisdictions, you may not be entitled to license your work yourself under a Creative Commons license because the necessary rights are not held by you but by the collecting society. Please also read the FAQ on the website of the Creative Commons project team for your jurisdiction for more information about this issue in your jurisdiction.
Creative Commons is reaching out to collecting societies in those jurisdictions where this problem arises to try to find a solution that enables creators to enjoy the benefits both systems offer.
If you encounter difficulties with using Creative Commons licenses because of your membership in a collecting society in your jurisdiction that is not listed above, please let either your country’s Creative Commons project team know or email info@creativecommons.org. Also, if you wish to discuss ways to try to deal with the situation in your country please contact your country’s Creative Commons project team.
If you are already a member of one of these collecting societies, feel free to encourage your collecting society to give you the option of Creative Commons licensing.
Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?
Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.
Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.
One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.
Do I need to register my copyright?
In most jurisdictions, registration is not required. However, for creators in the United States registration can be obtained and is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘Copyright Basics’ page, which explains more about copyright registration.
How do I register my copyright?
If you are based in the US, to find out more about how to register your copyright, check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘Copyright Basics’ page.
Is applying a Creative Commons license to my work the same or an alternative to registering the copyright to my work?
No. Applying a Creative Commons license to your work does not give you the same, similar or alternate protection to registering your copyright. Creative Commons licenses apply in addition to and on top of an existing copyright.
Do I need to register my copyright in order to use a Creative Commons license?
No. Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are copyrighted. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, copyright protection is automatic for those works that satisfy the requirements of copyright law. Generally, copyright attaches to creative and expressive works once they are fixed in tangible form, ie. the minute you put pen to paper, brush to easel, hit the “save” button on your computer, the “send” button on your email or take a photo.
For U.S. based creators, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘Copyright Basics’ page which explains more about copyright registration.
Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?
You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact.
Do Creative Commons licenses affect fair use, fair dealing or other exceptions to copyright?
No. All jurisdictions allow some uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as quotation, current-affairs reporting, or parody, although these vary from country to country. These are not dependent on the license and so cannot be affected by it. To make this clear, all of our licenses include this or similar language: “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.” Thus, regardless of the jurisdiction a user is in, our licenses do not affect a user’s right to use or allow use of content under copyright exceptions.
Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?
Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.
Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with its Commons Deed and metadata if you wish to use these licenses and still take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable code and Creative Commons customized search engine technology. You can find more details here.
Should I use Creative Commons licenses for software documentation?
Absolutely. Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.
What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?
As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.
Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in a court of law?
The Creative Commons Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be enforceable in court. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws and/or the circumstances within which our licenses are applied and Creative Commons-licensed content is used. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.
Will Creative Commons help me enforce my license?
Unfortunately, Creative Commons is not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist you with enforcing the licenses. We cannot afford to provide any ancillary services particular to your situation and, in any case, our mission does not include providing such services. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help press that offers form documentation -- at no cost -- for you to use however you see fit.
However, if you are based in the US, you may be able to find a suitably qualified volunteer lawyer in your area from this site. If you are based in Australia, the Arts Law Centre of Australia may be able to put you in touch with a volunteer lawyer.
What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?
A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms.
You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer.
I don’t like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?
If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work.
In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators “moral rights” which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to “derogatory treatment” of their work; “derogatory treatment” is typically defined as “distortion or mutilation” of the work or treatment, which is “prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.” All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered “derogatory.”
Questions for people thinking about using a Creative Commons-licensed work
Will Creative Commons give me permission to use a work?
The permission isn’t ours to give. Creative Commons simply makes available licenses and tools to enable creators and licensors to license their works on more flexible terms. By applying a Creative Commons license to a work, the creator or licensor has decided to clearly signal to members of the public, such as you, that you may use the work without having to ask for permission—provided that you use it consistent with the license terms.
Does Creative Commons determine what content is released under its licenses?
Creative Commons, as an organization, does not control how the licenses are used and does not check or verify whether a Creative Commons license has been correctly applied to a particular work. Creative Commons does not endorse or certify any use of its licenses.
Instead, Creative Commons provides the licenses as a tool that may be adopted (or not) by members of the creative community. Creative Commons does not determine whether the use of the licenses is appropriate for your situation or for a particular work.
What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?
The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:
Attribution=you must attribute the author and/or licensor in the manner they require.
NonCommercial=you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
NoDerivatives=you may only make verbatim copies of the work, you may not adapt or change it.
ShareAlike=you may only make derivative works if you license them under the same Creative Commons license terms.
For an overview of our licenses and links to the Commons Deed and Legal Code, check out this page. For the key details of our Sampling Licenses check this page.
So “NonCommercial” means that the work cannot be used commercially?
Not quite. The “NonCommercial” license option means that you do not receive the commercial rights via the Creative Commons license. You can always approach the licensor directly to see if they will separately license you the commercial rights.
What does the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” button mean? What does a Creative Commons license do?
A Creative Commons license is a signal to you that you can use the work without having to seek out the individual creator or licensor and ask for permission—provided you use the work in the manner permitted by the Creative Commons license. The Commons Deed sets out the key terms governing your use of the work.
What happens if I want to make a different use of the work?
If you want to use a Creative Commons-licensed work in a manner that is not permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you need to contact the creator and/or licensor and ask for their permission. If you use a Creative-Commons licensed work contrary to the terms of the Creative Commons license, your right to use the work terminates and you could be sued for infringement of copyright.
So I don’t have to pay to use Creative Commons-licensed works if I comply with the license terms?
As a general rule yes—Creative Commons licenses are made available under royalty-free licenses. In the case of Creative Commons-licensed works that are licensed for NonCommercial use only, the creator or licensor reserves the right to collect statutory royalties or royalties under compulsory licenses for commercial uses such as those collected for public performances; so, you may still have to pay a collecting society for such uses of Creative Commons licensed works. However, these are indirect payments, not payments to the licensor.
How do I use a Creative Commons-licensed work?
If you come across a work that says it is made available under a Creative Commons license, you are authorized by the licensor to use it consistent with those license terms. You should satisfy yourself that the scope of the license covers your intended uses. Since there are a number of versions of the Creative Commons licenses, you should read the particular license carefully to ensure that the license meets your needs. All Creative Commons licenses require that you attribute the author, licensor and/or any other parties specified by the author/licensor. To correctly use a Creative Commons licensed work, you must provide proper attribution. This is explained in the answer below.
To get an understanding of the key terms of the license, check out the Commons Deed for the license and/or review this page, which has links to the Commons Deed and basic explanations of all of our licenses.
Does using a Creative Commons-licensed work give me all the rights I need?
You should be aware that all of the licenses contain a disclaimer of warranties, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the licensor has all the necessary rights to permit reuse of the licensed work. The disclaimer means that the licensor is not guaranteeing anything about the work, including that she owns the copyright to it, or that she has cleared any uses of third-party content that her work may be based on or incorporate.
This is typical of so-called “open source” licenses, where works are made widely and freely available for reuse at no charge. The original version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses contained a warranty, but we ultimately concluded that, as with “open source” licenses, warranties and indemnities are best determined separately by private bargain, so that each licensor and licensee can determine the appropriate allocation of risk and reward for their unique situation. One option thus would be to use private contract to obtain a warranty and indemnification from the licensor, although it is likely that the licensor would charge for this benefit.
As a result of the warranty disclaimer, before using a Creative Commons licensed work, you should satisfy yourself that the person has all the necessary rights to make the work available under a Creative Commons license. You should know that if you are wrong, you could be liable for copyright infringement based on your use of the work.
You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license.
The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice.
How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses (Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommerical, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (this is the same as the Music Sharing license)) or under our Developing Nations license, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor.
You also need to provide the Uniform Resource Locator for the Creative Commons license that applies to the work, together with each copy of the work that you make available.
If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses or under the Developing Nations license, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”
If you are sampling a work licensed under one of our Sampling licenses you should credit derivative works you create using those samples by saying something along the lines of: “Remix of the [original work] by [author]” or “Inclusion of a portion of the [original work] by [author] in collage.”
What is a derivative work?
A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy. What this means exactly and comprehensively is the subject of many law journal articles and much debate and pontification. In general, a translation from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works. Under Creative Commons’ core licenses, synching music in timed-relation with a moving image is considered to be a derivative work.
Under U.S. law, generally, changing the format of a work—ie. from print to digital—where the content of the work has not otherwise been changed, would also constitute a derivative work; however, the Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or media. This means that, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, for example, you can copy the work from a digital file to a print file consistent with the terms of that license.
If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work with other works, do I have to Creative Commons license everything else as well?
With the exception of those of our licenses that contain the ShareAlike element, the Creative Commons licenses do not require everything else to be Creative Commons licensed as well. We specifically designed the Creative Commons licenses so that they would not turn all other works they were combined with into being Creative Commons-licensed. If you combine any work with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is licensed with a ShareAlike license provision, then, because of the way that the ShareAlike license element operates, the resultant work will need to be licensed under the same license as the original work.
If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a “collective work” (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection.
Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?
Generally yes; you can combine one Creative Commons licensed work with another Creative Commons licensed work or with another work.
The one big caveat is for Creative Commons licenses that contain the ShareAlike license element (ie. Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). These licenses require derivative works (ie. the result of two combined works) to be licensed under the same license elements. So, you cannot, for example, combine an Attribution-ShareAlike license with an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. If you are combining a work licensed under a ShareAlike license condition, you need to make sure that you are happy and able to license the resulting work under the same license conditions as the original work.
more at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
Creative Commons Licenses
The following are the six current license choices available from our choose a license application ... shown by name along the license characteristics that accompany them.
Name Characteristics
Attribution
Attribution-NoDerivs
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
Attribution-NonCommercial
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Attribution-ShareAlike
Questions for people thinking about applying a Creative Commons license to their work
How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work?
For online works, you apply a Creative Commons license to a work by selecting the license that suits your preferences. Once you have selected your license, and if you are applying it to an online work, follow the instructions to include the html code in your work. This code will automatically generate the “Some Rights Reserved” button and a statement that your work is licensed under a Creative Commons license, or a “No Rights Reserved” button if you choose to dedicate your work to the public domain. The button is designed to act as a notice to people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed under the applicable Creative Commons license. The html code will also include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines.
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to an offline work?
Yes. For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with a statement such as “This work is licensed under the Creative Commons [insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit [insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.” or insert the applicable license buttons with the same statement and URL link.
The only difference between applying a Creative Commons license to an offline work and applying it to an online work is that offline works will not include the metadata and, consequently, will not be identified via Creative Commons-customized search engines.
How does a Creative Commons license operate?
A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.
Creative Commons licenses give you the ability to dictate how others may exercise your copyright rights—such as the right of others to copy your work, make derivative works or adaptations of your work, to distribute your work and/or make money from your work. They do not give you the ability to restrict anything that is otherwise permitted by exceptions or limitations to copyright—including, importantly, fair use or fair dealing—nor do they give you the ability to control anything that is not protected by copyright law, such as facts and ideas.
Creative Commons licenses attach to the work and authorize everyone who comes in contact with the work to use it consistent with the license. This means that if Bob has a copy of your Creative Commons-licensed work, Bob can give a copy to Carol and Carol will be authorized to use the work consistent with the Creative Commons license. You then have a license agreement separately with both Bob and Carol.
Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code). You don’t need to sign anything to get a Creative Commons license—just select your license at our ‘Publish’ page.
One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.
What things should I think about before I apply a Creative Commons license to my work?
We have set out some things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work here
Which Creative Commons license should I choose?
You should choose the license that meets your preferences. The license is a statement as to what others may do with your work, so you should select a license that matches what you are happy for others to do with your work. You can find an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here.
You can find out information about how our licenses have been applied by other people to text, audio, images, video and educational works.
You can also participate in our email discussion lists and/or review the discussion archives to see if our community is able to respond to your questions and concerns and/or has already addressed them.
Finally, you can also consult with a lawyer to obtain advice on the best license for your needs. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer.
What if I change my mind?
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
Do I need to sign something or register to obtain a Creative Commons license?
No. Creative Commons licenses are designed to be applied to your work and to be binding upon people who use your work based on their notice of the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” (or “No Rights Reserved” in the case of the public domain dedication) button and the statement that the work is Creative Commons-licensed.
We do not keep track of or a register of which creative works have been licensed under a Creative Commons license. We make the licenses, code and tools available for you to use or not as you wish.
What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/metadata do?
Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).
The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.
The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law.
The metadata describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through customized search engines.
I am in a band; can I use Creative Commons licenses but still collect statutory royalties such as under statutory licenses for public performances?
Yes, so long as you choose a “NonCommercial” license option (ie. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) because under these licenses you reserve the right to collect royalties under statutory or compulsory licenses for commercial use of your work. Whether, as a practical matter, you can collect these royalties, depends on which country you are in (check out the answer to the next question).
Under the Creative Commons licenses that permit other people to make commercial use of your work (ie. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives), the licensor waives the right to collect these royalties.
I am a member of a collecting society, can I use Creative Commons licenses?
You need to check with your society. Currently, many of the collecting societies in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Taiwan and the Netherlands take an assignment of rights (or in France what is called a “mandate” of rights that nonetheless has the same effect practically as an assignment) from you in present and future works (so that they effectively become the owner of these rights) and manage them for you. So if you are already a member of a collecting society in one of these jurisdictions, you may not be entitled to license your work yourself under a Creative Commons license because the necessary rights are not held by you but by the collecting society. Please also read the FAQ on the website of the Creative Commons project team for your jurisdiction for more information about this issue in your jurisdiction.
Creative Commons is reaching out to collecting societies in those jurisdictions where this problem arises to try to find a solution that enables creators to enjoy the benefits both systems offer.
If you encounter difficulties with using Creative Commons licenses because of your membership in a collecting society in your jurisdiction that is not listed above, please let either your country’s Creative Commons project team know or email info@creativecommons.org. Also, if you wish to discuss ways to try to deal with the situation in your country please contact your country’s Creative Commons project team.
If you are already a member of one of these collecting societies, feel free to encourage your collecting society to give you the option of Creative Commons licensing.
Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?
Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.
Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.
One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.
Do I need to register my copyright?
In most jurisdictions, registration is not required. However, for creators in the United States registration can be obtained and is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘Copyright Basics’ page, which explains more about copyright registration.
How do I register my copyright?
If you are based in the US, to find out more about how to register your copyright, check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘Copyright Basics’ page.
Is applying a Creative Commons license to my work the same or an alternative to registering the copyright to my work?
No. Applying a Creative Commons license to your work does not give you the same, similar or alternate protection to registering your copyright. Creative Commons licenses apply in addition to and on top of an existing copyright.
Do I need to register my copyright in order to use a Creative Commons license?
No. Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are copyrighted. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, copyright protection is automatic for those works that satisfy the requirements of copyright law. Generally, copyright attaches to creative and expressive works once they are fixed in tangible form, ie. the minute you put pen to paper, brush to easel, hit the “save” button on your computer, the “send” button on your email or take a photo.
For U.S. based creators, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office’s ‘Copyright Basics’ page which explains more about copyright registration.
Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?
You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact.
Do Creative Commons licenses affect fair use, fair dealing or other exceptions to copyright?
No. All jurisdictions allow some uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as quotation, current-affairs reporting, or parody, although these vary from country to country. These are not dependent on the license and so cannot be affected by it. To make this clear, all of our licenses include this or similar language: “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.” Thus, regardless of the jurisdiction a user is in, our licenses do not affect a user’s right to use or allow use of content under copyright exceptions.
Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?
Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.
Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with its Commons Deed and metadata if you wish to use these licenses and still take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable code and Creative Commons customized search engine technology. You can find more details here.
Should I use Creative Commons licenses for software documentation?
Absolutely. Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.
What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?
As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.
Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in a court of law?
The Creative Commons Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be enforceable in court. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws and/or the circumstances within which our licenses are applied and Creative Commons-licensed content is used. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.
Will Creative Commons help me enforce my license?
Unfortunately, Creative Commons is not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist you with enforcing the licenses. We cannot afford to provide any ancillary services particular to your situation and, in any case, our mission does not include providing such services. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help press that offers form documentation -- at no cost -- for you to use however you see fit.
However, if you are based in the US, you may be able to find a suitably qualified volunteer lawyer in your area from this site. If you are based in Australia, the Arts Law Centre of Australia may be able to put you in touch with a volunteer lawyer.
What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?
A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms.
You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer.
I don’t like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?
If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work.
In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators “moral rights” which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to “derogatory treatment” of their work; “derogatory treatment” is typically defined as “distortion or mutilation” of the work or treatment, which is “prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.” All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered “derogatory.”
Questions for people thinking about using a Creative Commons-licensed work
Will Creative Commons give me permission to use a work?
The permission isn’t ours to give. Creative Commons simply makes available licenses and tools to enable creators and licensors to license their works on more flexible terms. By applying a Creative Commons license to a work, the creator or licensor has decided to clearly signal to members of the public, such as you, that you may use the work without having to ask for permission—provided that you use it consistent with the license terms.
Does Creative Commons determine what content is released under its licenses?
Creative Commons, as an organization, does not control how the licenses are used and does not check or verify whether a Creative Commons license has been correctly applied to a particular work. Creative Commons does not endorse or certify any use of its licenses.
Instead, Creative Commons provides the licenses as a tool that may be adopted (or not) by members of the creative community. Creative Commons does not determine whether the use of the licenses is appropriate for your situation or for a particular work.
What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?
The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:
Attribution=you must attribute the author and/or licensor in the manner they require.
NonCommercial=you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
NoDerivatives=you may only make verbatim copies of the work, you may not adapt or change it.
ShareAlike=you may only make derivative works if you license them under the same Creative Commons license terms.
For an overview of our licenses and links to the Commons Deed and Legal Code, check out this page. For the key details of our Sampling Licenses check this page.
So “NonCommercial” means that the work cannot be used commercially?
Not quite. The “NonCommercial” license option means that you do not receive the commercial rights via the Creative Commons license. You can always approach the licensor directly to see if they will separately license you the commercial rights.
What does the Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” button mean? What does a Creative Commons license do?
A Creative Commons license is a signal to you that you can use the work without having to seek out the individual creator or licensor and ask for permission—provided you use the work in the manner permitted by the Creative Commons license. The Commons Deed sets out the key terms governing your use of the work.
What happens if I want to make a different use of the work?
If you want to use a Creative Commons-licensed work in a manner that is not permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you need to contact the creator and/or licensor and ask for their permission. If you use a Creative-Commons licensed work contrary to the terms of the Creative Commons license, your right to use the work terminates and you could be sued for infringement of copyright.
So I don’t have to pay to use Creative Commons-licensed works if I comply with the license terms?
As a general rule yes—Creative Commons licenses are made available under royalty-free licenses. In the case of Creative Commons-licensed works that are licensed for NonCommercial use only, the creator or licensor reserves the right to collect statutory royalties or royalties under compulsory licenses for commercial uses such as those collected for public performances; so, you may still have to pay a collecting society for such uses of Creative Commons licensed works. However, these are indirect payments, not payments to the licensor.
How do I use a Creative Commons-licensed work?
If you come across a work that says it is made available under a Creative Commons license, you are authorized by the licensor to use it consistent with those license terms. You should satisfy yourself that the scope of the license covers your intended uses. Since there are a number of versions of the Creative Commons licenses, you should read the particular license carefully to ensure that the license meets your needs. All Creative Commons licenses require that you attribute the author, licensor and/or any other parties specified by the author/licensor. To correctly use a Creative Commons licensed work, you must provide proper attribution. This is explained in the answer below.
To get an understanding of the key terms of the license, check out the Commons Deed for the license and/or review this page, which has links to the Commons Deed and basic explanations of all of our licenses.
Does using a Creative Commons-licensed work give me all the rights I need?
You should be aware that all of the licenses contain a disclaimer of warranties, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the licensor has all the necessary rights to permit reuse of the licensed work. The disclaimer means that the licensor is not guaranteeing anything about the work, including that she owns the copyright to it, or that she has cleared any uses of third-party content that her work may be based on or incorporate.
This is typical of so-called “open source” licenses, where works are made widely and freely available for reuse at no charge. The original version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses contained a warranty, but we ultimately concluded that, as with “open source” licenses, warranties and indemnities are best determined separately by private bargain, so that each licensor and licensee can determine the appropriate allocation of risk and reward for their unique situation. One option thus would be to use private contract to obtain a warranty and indemnification from the licensor, although it is likely that the licensor would charge for this benefit.
As a result of the warranty disclaimer, before using a Creative Commons licensed work, you should satisfy yourself that the person has all the necessary rights to make the work available under a Creative Commons license. You should know that if you are wrong, you could be liable for copyright infringement based on your use of the work.
You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license.
The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice.
How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses (Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommerical, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (this is the same as the Music Sharing license)) or under our Developing Nations license, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor.
You also need to provide the Uniform Resource Locator for the Creative Commons license that applies to the work, together with each copy of the work that you make available.
If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses or under the Developing Nations license, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”
If you are sampling a work licensed under one of our Sampling licenses you should credit derivative works you create using those samples by saying something along the lines of: “Remix of the [original work] by [author]” or “Inclusion of a portion of the [original work] by [author] in collage.”
What is a derivative work?
A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy. What this means exactly and comprehensively is the subject of many law journal articles and much debate and pontification. In general, a translation from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works. Under Creative Commons’ core licenses, synching music in timed-relation with a moving image is considered to be a derivative work.
Under U.S. law, generally, changing the format of a work—ie. from print to digital—where the content of the work has not otherwise been changed, would also constitute a derivative work; however, the Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or media. This means that, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, for example, you can copy the work from a digital file to a print file consistent with the terms of that license.
If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work with other works, do I have to Creative Commons license everything else as well?
With the exception of those of our licenses that contain the ShareAlike element, the Creative Commons licenses do not require everything else to be Creative Commons licensed as well. We specifically designed the Creative Commons licenses so that they would not turn all other works they were combined with into being Creative Commons-licensed. If you combine any work with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is licensed with a ShareAlike license provision, then, because of the way that the ShareAlike license element operates, the resultant work will need to be licensed under the same license as the original work.
If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a “collective work” (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection.
Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?
Generally yes; you can combine one Creative Commons licensed work with another Creative Commons licensed work or with another work.
The one big caveat is for Creative Commons licenses that contain the ShareAlike license element (ie. Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). These licenses require derivative works (ie. the result of two combined works) to be licensed under the same license elements. So, you cannot, for example, combine an Attribution-ShareAlike license with an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. If you are combining a work licensed under a ShareAlike license condition, you need to make sure that you are happy and able to license the resulting work under the same license conditions as the original work.
more at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
Fortunat,
I think the key is the meaning of copyright vs. authorship. I believe the language of the rule only copyrights the expression and not the meaning or content. The author retains full rights to re-express those ideas in another context.
It also seems to me that no one who has objected with the possible exception of John Cote has objected to the NAWCC using the material elsewhere.
The issue around permission is the possible difficulty of obtaining it in a historical setting. It is very easy to lose track of those who have posted here. This is especially true when they do not use their own name and may use a temporary email account to register.
I believe the drafters of the rule were trying to keep it short enough that it would actually be read by those agreeing to it. A full form publication contract would run to several pages for just this one clause of the rules.
Once again, I did not write these rules. However, the current statement would not inhibit any of my contributions to the Message Board. I believe it fully protects my authorship of any work I share here.
=========================
Dave and I were posting at the same time. His post, while important, also illustrates how easy it is to get very deep in this issue.
I also read the link in Ralph's post and I feel that my interpretation of our rule is the same as the rule expressed there. That language is a bit longer than ours, which could affect the "likelihood to be read" issue.
I think the key is the meaning of copyright vs. authorship. I believe the language of the rule only copyrights the expression and not the meaning or content. The author retains full rights to re-express those ideas in another context.
It also seems to me that no one who has objected with the possible exception of John Cote has objected to the NAWCC using the material elsewhere.
The issue around permission is the possible difficulty of obtaining it in a historical setting. It is very easy to lose track of those who have posted here. This is especially true when they do not use their own name and may use a temporary email account to register.
I believe the drafters of the rule were trying to keep it short enough that it would actually be read by those agreeing to it. A full form publication contract would run to several pages for just this one clause of the rules.
Once again, I did not write these rules. However, the current statement would not inhibit any of my contributions to the Message Board. I believe it fully protects my authorship of any work I share here.
=========================
Dave and I were posting at the same time. His post, while important, also illustrates how easy it is to get very deep in this issue.
I also read the link in Ralph's post and I feel that my interpretation of our rule is the same as the rule expressed there. That language is a bit longer than ours, which could affect the "likelihood to be read" issue.
"Once again, I did not write these rules. However, the current statement would not inhibit any of my contributions to the Message Board. I believe it fully protects my authorship of any work I share here."
Tom, the new rules were posted along with your name. Are you now speaking as just another NAWCC member, or on behalf of those who wrote the rules?
If you deny responsibility for them -- quite understandably <g> -- it would seem both appropriate and helpful for those who do have responsibility to step forward and defend them. Fortunat has also now offered serious concerns, as have several other individuals who are hardly minions of lunar variation.
Similarly, that the rules as stated would not inhibit *your* contributions is *your* choice -- which is the point, if in reverse.
What the rules say -- stated so that simple folk can understand them in one mental breath -- is essentially "we can publish or transfer or otherwise use your contributions at anytime anywhere in any arrangement or form without your having a say." The like it or leave it is not yet understood.
You have some serious supporters of the MB (not to mention the NAWCC) who almost immediately objected to the present form of the new rules and who have personal and professional experience with copyright concerns.
It's hardly "with the possible exception of...." one errant or confused or disaffected voice.
Regards,
Doug
Tom, the new rules were posted along with your name. Are you now speaking as just another NAWCC member, or on behalf of those who wrote the rules?
If you deny responsibility for them -- quite understandably <g> -- it would seem both appropriate and helpful for those who do have responsibility to step forward and defend them. Fortunat has also now offered serious concerns, as have several other individuals who are hardly minions of lunar variation.
Similarly, that the rules as stated would not inhibit *your* contributions is *your* choice -- which is the point, if in reverse.
What the rules say -- stated so that simple folk can understand them in one mental breath -- is essentially "we can publish or transfer or otherwise use your contributions at anytime anywhere in any arrangement or form without your having a say." The like it or leave it is not yet understood.
You have some serious supporters of the MB (not to mention the NAWCC) who almost immediately objected to the present form of the new rules and who have personal and professional experience with copyright concerns.
It's hardly "with the possible exception of...." one errant or confused or disaffected voice.
Regards,
Doug
Thank you Dave for sharing that text. As usual in anything dealing with intellectual property the devil is in the details.
Tom,
I don't think the issue is quite a simple as you see it. Content and expression of course are not allways as distinct from each other as you assume. Obviously the "two sentence" contribution to a rambling ongoing thread is not the issue.
But the message board has other kind of contributions. One of my more frequent oens is detailed, formal reviews of new horological books. They may be several typed pages in length and are (hopefully) reasonably carefully crafted.
Typically I submit these at the same time to the editor of the NAWCC bulletin. If Diana choses not to run them in the Bulletin, I may submitt them to other horological periodicals or websites as well, which sometimes means that I have to (or ask them to) translate them into a foreign language.
Under the strictest possible reading of your MB rules as they are stated now, the moment I post something on the new message board, I grant an EXCLUSIVE copyright to NAWCC, which means I can not use that material anyplace else. I can restate my thoughts in other words, but even making a foreign translation translation of my previously posted text available soemwhere else would be a no-no.
Or an other example; Board Member X ansers a query on the board "how does one set up the strike train of model ABC of XYZ clock company?".
A few months later a similar inquiry pots up on a other MB or Newsgroup. Should that member be forbidden to cut and paste again from his own "misc hor facts archives" just because he
has has once before done so for the NAWCC MB? Or do you want him/her to go through the charade of changeing a few words just to create a seemingly "new expression" of his previous thoughts or insights?
I am convinced that this was NOT the INTENT of the people who wrote the rules.
Yes, NAWCC must of course own a copyright to the content of the threads of the message board, but I don't think that an EXCLUSIVE copyright is practical. The author must retain the right to use the material again, verbatim if he so desires, in a different content.
Admittedly for the majority of the MB users this is a non issue, but I believe that for the minority who do publish their work regularly (be it in print or on-line), the rules as stated would have a counterproductive effect and diminish the quality and usefullness of the MB.
Fortunat
Tom,
I don't think the issue is quite a simple as you see it. Content and expression of course are not allways as distinct from each other as you assume. Obviously the "two sentence" contribution to a rambling ongoing thread is not the issue.
But the message board has other kind of contributions. One of my more frequent oens is detailed, formal reviews of new horological books. They may be several typed pages in length and are (hopefully) reasonably carefully crafted.
Typically I submit these at the same time to the editor of the NAWCC bulletin. If Diana choses not to run them in the Bulletin, I may submitt them to other horological periodicals or websites as well, which sometimes means that I have to (or ask them to) translate them into a foreign language.
Under the strictest possible reading of your MB rules as they are stated now, the moment I post something on the new message board, I grant an EXCLUSIVE copyright to NAWCC, which means I can not use that material anyplace else. I can restate my thoughts in other words, but even making a foreign translation translation of my previously posted text available soemwhere else would be a no-no.
Or an other example; Board Member X ansers a query on the board "how does one set up the strike train of model ABC of XYZ clock company?".
A few months later a similar inquiry pots up on a other MB or Newsgroup. Should that member be forbidden to cut and paste again from his own "misc hor facts archives" just because he
has has once before done so for the NAWCC MB? Or do you want him/her to go through the charade of changeing a few words just to create a seemingly "new expression" of his previous thoughts or insights?
I am convinced that this was NOT the INTENT of the people who wrote the rules.
Yes, NAWCC must of course own a copyright to the content of the threads of the message board, but I don't think that an EXCLUSIVE copyright is practical. The author must retain the right to use the material again, verbatim if he so desires, in a different content.
Admittedly for the majority of the MB users this is a non issue, but I believe that for the minority who do publish their work regularly (be it in print or on-line), the rules as stated would have a counterproductive effect and diminish the quality and usefullness of the MB.
Fortunat
I'd just add that the issue of it being difficult sometimes to secure permission from an individual to (re)publish material (especially as we have e-vagrants and the like) is a false issue.
It would be extremely easy to give each individual when registering the choice of whether permission must be sought or not (which could be changed later, but of course).
For example:
___ Do you agree that the NAWCC may publish (etc.) any of your contributions without first seeking your permission?
___ Or only with your specific permission?
If you choose the latter, please give an email address (tel., postal, or whatever) where you may be reached.
And, as in the real-world, if permission is not given then that is the way it is. If the individual's contribution isn't worth asking for his permission then you lose nothing in any case.
And if few would choose the second option, then few would.
It would be extremely easy to give each individual when registering the choice of whether permission must be sought or not (which could be changed later, but of course).
For example:
___ Do you agree that the NAWCC may publish (etc.) any of your contributions without first seeking your permission?
___ Or only with your specific permission?
If you choose the latter, please give an email address (tel., postal, or whatever) where you may be reached.
And, as in the real-world, if permission is not given then that is the way it is. If the individual's contribution isn't worth asking for his permission then you lose nothing in any case.
And if few would choose the second option, then few would.
The rules were developed to provide freedom of action for the NAWCC and simultaneously prevent abuse by both the NAWCC and other users of the Message Board. The rules are subject to review by the Executive Director and probably also by the Board of Directors since they set policy as well as describe business operations.
In the case cited above of answering the same question twice. The common way to do this is, as described in the Virgin Moving rules, post a link.
All the discussion and suggestions coming forward here are being followed by those who will make any final decisions. I will participate in that process, but once again, "these are not my rules."
In the case cited above of answering the same question twice. The common way to do this is, as described in the Virgin Moving rules, post a link.
All the discussion and suggestions coming forward here are being followed by those who will make any final decisions. I will participate in that process, but once again, "these are not my rules."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/chi-copyright,0,3270120.htmlstory
Here is a set of Copyright notices from an online News Source.
The new Copyright notice gives the NAWCC 100% rights and ownership without noting the Authors Rights.
Here is a set of Copyright notices from an online News Source.
The new Copyright notice gives the NAWCC 100% rights and ownership without noting the Authors Rights.
"Failure to credit is plagiarism."
Tom, the above is important to any researcher who dares to share his or her findings here.
Conversely, I would think that anyone who shares info found on these sites would credit the person who found this stuff. (as Kent Singer does)
And Tom, I think we all are very grateful for the work that is being done with the NAWCC board but you keep saying that this is "not your rule".
you are our point man here. We need your leadership. This rule is written wrongly and could cause trouble in the future I would think.
Surely the committee that came up with the wording on this rule would listen to rational thoughts about it and consider modifying it.
Tom, the above is important to any researcher who dares to share his or her findings here.
Conversely, I would think that anyone who shares info found on these sites would credit the person who found this stuff. (as Kent Singer does)
And Tom, I think we all are very grateful for the work that is being done with the NAWCC board but you keep saying that this is "not your rule".
you are our point man here. We need your leadership. This rule is written wrongly and could cause trouble in the future I would think.
Surely the committee that came up with the wording on this rule would listen to rational thoughts about it and consider modifying it.
G
Guest
I would first like to start of with thanking Tom for taking the heat on this matter. I am the one that has been working on the new message board rules. I had hoped to continue my focus on getting the new message board up and running, but I feel I need to stop and give everyone and explanation about the copyright rule.
First let me explain why the new rule was considered. While visiting other message boards I noticed that some people where copying post from the NAWCC message board and re-posting them onto other message boards. The people where then criticizing the writing skills of the posts’ authors, their intelligence and just plain ripping the person and their post to shreds without even giving them a chance to respond. The other reason the rule was put into place was to stop people from copying posts and threads that had been removed or deleted from the NAWCC message board and reposting them onto other venues and continuing the bad behavior that caused the post to be removed from the NAWCC message board in the first place.
To the best of my knowledge the NAWCC has never stolen anyone’s intellectual property and we do not wish to do so now. The rule was not intended to imply that once you posted something on the NAWCC message board that we owned it and you could not use it somewhere else. We are actually trying to protect your information by not allowing what you share with the NAWCC message board and its’ members to be copied by someone other than you to another venue without your permission.
We will be hosting pictures soon and the pictures will be stored in their own file folder. If someone got mad at the NAWCC and decided they no longer wanted to have any of their information displayed on the message board and wanted all of their pictures deleted it would be a daunting task to cleanse all of their material from the message board. If we own what is posted on the message board this would not be a problem.
I will take a look at clearing up some of the misunderstandings about the rule, however the rule will be kept simple and it will not be pages long. I want to thank Ralph for his link to the Virgin Island Moving Center Message Board. This is a very good copyright notice and I have written to them and ask permission to use some of the information from it.
First let me explain why the new rule was considered. While visiting other message boards I noticed that some people where copying post from the NAWCC message board and re-posting them onto other message boards. The people where then criticizing the writing skills of the posts’ authors, their intelligence and just plain ripping the person and their post to shreds without even giving them a chance to respond. The other reason the rule was put into place was to stop people from copying posts and threads that had been removed or deleted from the NAWCC message board and reposting them onto other venues and continuing the bad behavior that caused the post to be removed from the NAWCC message board in the first place.
To the best of my knowledge the NAWCC has never stolen anyone’s intellectual property and we do not wish to do so now. The rule was not intended to imply that once you posted something on the NAWCC message board that we owned it and you could not use it somewhere else. We are actually trying to protect your information by not allowing what you share with the NAWCC message board and its’ members to be copied by someone other than you to another venue without your permission.
We will be hosting pictures soon and the pictures will be stored in their own file folder. If someone got mad at the NAWCC and decided they no longer wanted to have any of their information displayed on the message board and wanted all of their pictures deleted it would be a daunting task to cleanse all of their material from the message board. If we own what is posted on the message board this would not be a problem.
I will take a look at clearing up some of the misunderstandings about the rule, however the rule will be kept simple and it will not be pages long. I want to thank Ralph for his link to the Virgin Island Moving Center Message Board. This is a very good copyright notice and I have written to them and ask permission to use some of the information from it.
Instead of
----------------------------------------
Copyright Notice
All our Trade Marks, Titles, Logos, Names and Descriptions of Categories and Forums including but not limited to "NAWCC Message Board" are the property of NAWCC Inc. and World-Wide Ownership Rights are hereby asserted and protected. All Intellectual Property and Images appearing on the NAWCC Message Board in any form or format are Ownership and Copyright Protected World-Wide.
-------------------------------------------
I would suggest as a minimum concession/clarification:
------------------------------------------
Copyright Notice
All our Trade Marks, Titles, Logos, Names and Descriptions of Categories and Forums including but not limited to "NAWCC Message Board" are the property of NAWCC Inc. and World-Wide Ownership Rights are hereby asserted and protected. All Intellectual Property and Images appearing on the NAWCC Message Board in any form or format are Ownership and Copyright Protected World-Wide.
No post or thread may be copied and placed on any other website without express permission of the administrator of the NAWCC message board.
These rules shall not limit the copyright of the authors of individual postings to reuse their postings (but not the threads containing them) in any way they desire.
---------------------------------------------
A more wider ranging solution might also include the clause:
NAWCC Inc. agrees
1.to use the content of the Messageboard threads only for educational purposes and
2.to not use individual postings outside of the content of the thead without the expressed specific permission of the author, and
3.to not to sell or license the content of the threads of this message board to third parties.
.
I hope this is helpfull. I am not hung up on any specific wording but feel that authors need some protection that their contributions are not used for a purpose other than they were intended.
Fortunat
----------------------------------------
Copyright Notice
All our Trade Marks, Titles, Logos, Names and Descriptions of Categories and Forums including but not limited to "NAWCC Message Board" are the property of NAWCC Inc. and World-Wide Ownership Rights are hereby asserted and protected. All Intellectual Property and Images appearing on the NAWCC Message Board in any form or format are Ownership and Copyright Protected World-Wide.
-------------------------------------------
I would suggest as a minimum concession/clarification:
------------------------------------------
Copyright Notice
All our Trade Marks, Titles, Logos, Names and Descriptions of Categories and Forums including but not limited to "NAWCC Message Board" are the property of NAWCC Inc. and World-Wide Ownership Rights are hereby asserted and protected. All Intellectual Property and Images appearing on the NAWCC Message Board in any form or format are Ownership and Copyright Protected World-Wide.
No post or thread may be copied and placed on any other website without express permission of the administrator of the NAWCC message board.
These rules shall not limit the copyright of the authors of individual postings to reuse their postings (but not the threads containing them) in any way they desire.
---------------------------------------------
A more wider ranging solution might also include the clause:
NAWCC Inc. agrees
1.to use the content of the Messageboard threads only for educational purposes and
2.to not use individual postings outside of the content of the thead without the expressed specific permission of the author, and
3.to not to sell or license the content of the threads of this message board to third parties.
.
I hope this is helpfull. I am not hung up on any specific wording but feel that authors need some protection that their contributions are not used for a purpose other than they were intended.
Fortunat
Fortunat,
excellent.
Jeff Hamilton,
thanks for clearing that up.
You guys are doing terrific work at a rather tough job.
Thanks for considering the memberships wishes and considering the "possiblity" of a slight revision.
This gives us all hope and proves even more why we have the right men for the job.
excellent.
Jeff Hamilton,
thanks for clearing that up.
You guys are doing terrific work at a rather tough job.
Thanks for considering the memberships wishes and considering the "possiblity" of a slight revision.
This gives us all hope and proves even more why we have the right men for the job.
I have been following these threads with some interest. There apppears to be differing opinions that have brought to light some probably unintended consequences that are much better resolved before the new rules go into effect.
IMHO both the rights of NAWCC and the rights of contributors to these boards need to be respected. Fortunat's suggestions to modify the proposed rule to allow joint ownership (with some restrictions as to future use and sale by NAWCC) should go a long way to reduce the concern that research or technical opinions published by an individual will be taken out of his or her control just by its publication here. This might have a chilling effect on some of the fine contributions that have, and will be made in the future, on this board. It will also prevent someone from lifting an entire thread (except for those parts that he or she had authored) for use in another venue.
IMHO both the rights of NAWCC and the rights of contributors to these boards need to be respected. Fortunat's suggestions to modify the proposed rule to allow joint ownership (with some restrictions as to future use and sale by NAWCC) should go a long way to reduce the concern that research or technical opinions published by an individual will be taken out of his or her control just by its publication here. This might have a chilling effect on some of the fine contributions that have, and will be made in the future, on this board. It will also prevent someone from lifting an entire thread (except for those parts that he or she had authored) for use in another venue.
Hi Tom,
IMHO, it's only required to go deep into the subject IF you care about it. For example, flickr.com gives everyone a default copyright level, and then - only if you care - you can go in and change it to one of the other five levels for which they provide a great deal of description. So, you read all that is there ONLY IF you care about such things and wish to choose a personal level of control of copyright that differs from the default they assign to all new members.
Note that I've only been a member on flickr.com for three days, but I'm very impressed with their set up. I'm sure there are many other good models to borrow from. Their example seems to be a model that modern Internet sharing sites are adopting. Note that the description from their site does not come from flickr.com, but from wiki (a widespread and wildly successful information sharing model unto itself). That is - flickr.com didn't make this stuff up but rather they borrowed from what was developed by experts in the public domain (wiki) sharing their views and proposing how best to share and retain their individual and site copyright, while at the same time promoting sharing and creativity to the greatest extent.
So with all that is readily available from very successful operations on the Internet, how in the world did our apparently unpopular policy come about?
Come on now, this does not need to be so difficult!
IMHO, it's only required to go deep into the subject IF you care about it. For example, flickr.com gives everyone a default copyright level, and then - only if you care - you can go in and change it to one of the other five levels for which they provide a great deal of description. So, you read all that is there ONLY IF you care about such things and wish to choose a personal level of control of copyright that differs from the default they assign to all new members.
Note that I've only been a member on flickr.com for three days, but I'm very impressed with their set up. I'm sure there are many other good models to borrow from. Their example seems to be a model that modern Internet sharing sites are adopting. Note that the description from their site does not come from flickr.com, but from wiki (a widespread and wildly successful information sharing model unto itself). That is - flickr.com didn't make this stuff up but rather they borrowed from what was developed by experts in the public domain (wiki) sharing their views and proposing how best to share and retain their individual and site copyright, while at the same time promoting sharing and creativity to the greatest extent.
So with all that is readily available from very successful operations on the Internet, how in the world did our apparently unpopular policy come about?
Come on now, this does not need to be so difficult!
Most of the turmoil here is being caused by information being supposedly copied here and transmitted to other places. However most members of this MB and others have their Notifications turned on for specific Forums to receive all posts being made. They receive this by email and many times even answer those posts by email. Not really visiting the site.
This is one of the falacies about editing or even deleting threads. They rarely ever get deleted before someone is emailed its content. There is also the fact that this and all other MBs are usually copied and indexed by SEs. This information is also placed on other sites throughout the internet. Google, Yahoo, et al. The only way that could be stopped would be to completely close this site to the PUBLIC and prevent all members from receiving email from the site.
To set up a Copyright rule such as was done here will make all those sites in conflict with the Copyright rules.
Let's burn the books and tar and feather the teachers to chase them off the Internet.
This is one of the falacies about editing or even deleting threads. They rarely ever get deleted before someone is emailed its content. There is also the fact that this and all other MBs are usually copied and indexed by SEs. This information is also placed on other sites throughout the internet. Google, Yahoo, et al. The only way that could be stopped would be to completely close this site to the PUBLIC and prevent all members from receiving email from the site.
To set up a Copyright rule such as was done here will make all those sites in conflict with the Copyright rules.
Let's burn the books and tar and feather the teachers to chase them off the Internet.
Going back to Tom's explanation of the copyright situation:
Thus I am attracted to Fortunat's suggested clarifications as posted above, allowing for the author/contributer to reuse the material, as posted, as he/she may see fit. I hope that the rules can be changed to allow for the sharing of rights that this enables.
Although I understand the reasons for the NAWCC to wish to copyright the material posted on its message boards, I have a problem ceding the rights to my material, as posted on the NAWCC message board, to the NAWCC. Should I develop an explanation of a topic for use on the NAWCC message board, I would not wish to have to re-work it in order to use it elsewhere. Similarly, should I create a picture and post it (for whatever reason) on the NAWCC message board, I would not want to have to re-make the picture to use it elsewhere.
Thus I am attracted to Fortunat's suggested clarifications as posted above, allowing for the author/contributer to reuse the material, as posted, as he/she may see fit. I hope that the rules can be changed to allow for the sharing of rights that this enables.
Last edited by a moderator:
I too would hope to see this matter addressed in a way that will satisfy some of the concerns that have been expressed here about the new rules.
I would hate to see this new coming message board start off as anything other than a place where contributors feel welcome and appreciated.
Fred
I would hate to see this new coming message board start off as anything other than a place where contributors feel welcome and appreciated.
Fred
Fred,
Well said.
As the big boss said on another thread, he is considering modifying the rule.
Lets give them some breathing room.
This board is coming back to life with the current leadership.
Well said.
As the big boss said on another thread, he is considering modifying the rule.
Lets give them some breathing room.
This board is coming back to life with the current leadership.
G
Guest
If everyone would just give us a few days we are working on a revision to the copyright rule. When we feel we have something tangible to present I will post it here. We are listening and have heard your concerns.
another interesting discussion
old ref::http://nawcc-mb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/574604458...251061092#4251061092
old ref::http://nawcc-mb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/574604458...251061092#4251061092
G
Guest
Here is the location of the New Proposed Copyright rule.
old ref:roposed Copyright Rule.
Please keep all comments in the new thread.
old ref:
roposed Copyright Rule.Please keep all comments in the new thread.
Similar threads
Know Your NAWCC Forums Rules!
RULES & GUIDELINES
RULES & GUIDELINES
Staff online
-
shutterbugModerator -
musicguyModerator -
Steven ThornberryUser Administrator
Members online
- Kieran McCarthy
- SuffolkM
- eri231
- jabregana
- shutterbug
- jshopper1
- rmarkowitz1_cee4a1
- thomas kicklighter
- nutmegtinker
- gintarasb64
- Jim Haney
- nathusius
- ToddT
- musicguy
- Audemars
- Lakesharry
- sophiebear0_0
- RonJV
- HPLovecraft
- Skutt50
- Micam100
- Rob57
- shervyn
- chippy2
- P.Hageman
- daveR
- Steven Thornberry
- Warwian
- Younoowho
- hornbee
- leealp1
- The Hunter
- chimeclockfan
- JTD
- novicetimekeeper
- ADNEI
Forum statistics
- Threads
- 163,561
- Messages
- 1,421,358
- Members
- 84,956
- Latest member
- nathusius
- Encyclopedia Pages
- 1,101
- Total wiki contributions
- 2,857
- Last edit
- Aurora's 15 Ruby Jewel Movements by Greg Frauenhoff