Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Public domain

2012-05-16T01:11:55Z

Tenanaon:

When a work is in the public domain, it is free for use by anyone for any purpose without restriction under copyright law. Public domain is the purest form of open/free, since no one owns or controls the material in any way.

Works that are in the public domain in one legal jurisdiction are not necessarily in the public domain worldwide. Copyright laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, both in duration of protection and what constitutes copyrightable subject matter. For example, [http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml a US Government work] -- clearly in the public domain in the United States -- may or may not be free of copyright restrictions and in the public domain in other jurisdictions. At present, one of the only ways to be certain that a particular work is in the public domain worldwide is to see if the copyright holder has dedicated all rights to the work to the public domain by using [http://www.ksaday.com/2012/05/cara-menurunkan-berat-badan-dengan.html C][http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 C0].

Creative Commons licenses do not affect the status of a work that is in the public domain under applicable law, because our licenses only apply to works that are protected by copyright. For more information, see [[Before Licensing| our Licensing Guide]] to what you should know before you license a work using CC licenses.

Find out more about [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain CC's public domain tools], and learn more about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain the public domain].

== When does a work enter the public domain? ==

This varies by country. To see when a work in the [[United States]] enters the public domain, see [http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html copyright.gov's public domain page].

Cornell University has also provided a [http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ handy table about copyright term and the public domain] in the United States.

== Creative Commons public domain tools ==

* [[CC0]] (occasionally written as CC Zero) is a public domain dedication that allows copyright holders to place works in the public domain to the extent legally possible, worldwide.
* CC's [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Public Domain Mark] allows anyone to mark a work that is already free of copyright restrictions around the world.

See http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain for more information on CC's public domain tools.

Public domain content in practice is any content without copyright. It may be deliberately freed from restrictions by the copyright owner, or the copyright may lapse after a certain time.

The legal details in practice vary between countries. More information about public domain can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain Wikipedia's article on the public doma][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/04/blackberry-murah.html in].

== Appropedia's Public Domain Search ==

[http://www.appropedia.org/Appropedia%27s_Public_Domain_Search Appropedia's Public Domain Search] was started in late 2007 when it was discovered there was no effective public domain search available. This operates on a completely different method to searches using the Creative Commons marks. It uses a manually maintained index of sites known to be public domain - thus it is does not yield 100% public domain results, and content must be checked to confirm public domain status. Reliability is expected to improve, and feedback by users is encouraged.

As CC public domain tools become widely used, searches based on the CC marks would be expected to take over from Appropedia's Public Domain Search.

== See also ==

* [[Cultivating the Public Domain]]
* [http://www.ksaday.com/2012/01/4shared-com.html Situs 4shared]
{{Translations
| articles = Hr:Javno dobro, Pt:Domínio público, Ru:Общественное достояние
}}

[[Category:Public domain]]

Collecting Society Projects

2012-05-16T01:05:29Z

Tenanaon:

{{Project}}

This page collects information about the interaction between various Creative Commons jurisdiction projects and collecting societies. It provides an overview of jurisdictions where Collecting Society members can use Creative Commons licenses ('[[#Projects|Projects]]') and of jurisdictions where there are talks between the jurisdiction project and a collecting society in order to achieve this goal ('[[#Negotiations|Negotiations]]').

== Priorities ==

# Increase usage of CC license in jurisdiction
# Increase legal certainty for musicians wishing to use CC licenses
# Increase profitability of CC license users
# Support non-exclusive collecting societies

'''NOTE: When interacting with Collecting Society representatives it is important to be cordial with them and provide information about Creative Commons usage (see [[Case_Studies|case studies]], [[Documentation|documentation]] and [[Metrics|metrics]]) and integrating Creative Commons licenses (see: [[CCPlus|CC+]], [[CcREL]] and [[Web_Integration|web integration]]). Be be mindful of the overall [[#Priorities|priorities]] and ensure that you are in line with the arrangements made as part of ongoing [[#Projects|projects]]'''

==Projects==

* [[Collecting Society Projects/Netherlands]]: pilot project between CC Netherlands and [http://www.bumastemra.nl/en-US/Home.htm BUMA/STEMRA] (Collecting society for composers and songwriters) launched on 23 august 2007 and currently running.
* [[Collecting Society Projects/Denmark]]: trail agreed between [http://www.ksaday.com K][http://www.koda.dk/english ODA] (Collecting society for composers, songwriters and music publishers) launced on 31 january 2008 and currently running.
* [[Collecting Society Projects/Sweden]]: On 27 may [http://www.stim.se/stim/prod/stimv4eng.nsf STI][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/05/merubah-word-ke-pdf.html M] (Collecting society for composers, songwriters and music publishers) announced a two year trail that allows for their members to use CC-NC licenses. Currently running without involvement by CC-Sweden.
* [[Collecting Society Projects/France]]: Pilot project between CC-France and [http://www.sacem.fr/WportailSacem/jsp/ep/home.html SACEM] (Collecting Society for original music composers, authors and publishers)

==Negotiations==

* [[Collecting Society Projects/Italy]] (page is currently empty): There are currently negotiations between CC-Italy and [http://www.siae.it/index.asp SIAE] (Italian Society of Authors and Publishers, representing all sorts of authors and publishers (not only in the field of music))
* [[Collecting Society Projects/Australia]] There are currently negotiations between CC-Australia and [http://www.apra-amcos.com.au APRA] (Collecting Society for original music composers, authors and publishers)
* [[Collecting Society Projects/Germany]] (page is currently empty): There are currently negotiations between CC-Germany and [http://www.vgwort.de/ VG-W][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/05/obat-sakit-gigi.html o][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/05/rumah-unik-terbaik-di-dunia.html r][http://www.vgwort.de/ t] (Collecting Society for authors of literary, journalistic and scientific works)

=== links (to be moved elsewhere) ===

* APRA "Creative Commons" page, http://www.apra.com.au/writers/forms_and_guidelines/creative_commons.asp
* APRA CEO Brett Cottle's article on ArtsHub, http://www.artshub.com.au/au/news.asp?sId=70075
* Opt APRA, http://www.optapra.net
* Elliott Bledsoe's blog entry after the CCau Music Forum, http://ccelliott.blogspot.com/2007/11/post-music-industry-forum-reflections.html
* Reform APRA MySpace with 'I support reforms for APRA' pledges from Australian musicians, http://www.myspace.com/optoutofapra

* Improbable Match: Open Licences And Collecting Societies In Europe, http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1291

Version 3

2012-05-16T00:55:19Z

Tenanaon:

= Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation =

===''by Mia Garlick, General Counsel Creative Commons''===

Since April 2005, Creative Commons has been working on versioning up its core licensing suite. The Creative Commons licenses (For an overview of the licenses, ''see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses]) serve as an important vehicle by which many millions of creators clearly signal to the world that they are happy for members of the public to engage in some of the exciting new uses of content that are made possible by digital technologies. Using a CC license, an artist can, for example, invite the public to share their work or mash it up (on certain conditions).

A distinctive feature of CC’s licensing infrastructure is ensuring that it is comprehensible to both humans (the Commons Deed) and machines (the metadata) as well as enforceable in a court of law (the Legal Code, which is the actual license). But another important aspect of the CC licensing system is to ensure that it respected by the community of people who apply our licenses to their content, who use CC-licensed content and who are committed to enabling free culture.

Creative Commons regularly invites and receives feedback about its licenses and how they may be able to be improved to better serve the people who use them and who use CC-licensed content. Obviously, all things can be improved with the benefit of hindsight and experience; also, the environment within which CC licenses are used is always changing. When CC first released its licenses, for example, the use of video and video-sharing sites had not yet been deployed, let alone used to the extent they are today.

We released version 1.0 of our licenses in December 2002 (''See'' CC Weblog, Creative Commons Launches, December 15, 2002, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3484]). Like software releases, we track the different licenses by version. In May 2004, we versioned to 2.0 (''See'' CC Weblog, Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, May 25, 2004, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216]) and then made a minor tweak to the attribution clause in June 2005 (''See'' CC Weblog, Comments Period Drawing to a Close for Draft License Version 2.5, May 29, 2006, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457]) and versioned to 2.5. Now, CC is versioning to 3.0. We announced a timetable for versioning to 3.0 back in May 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, ‘Getting to Version 3.0,’ May 17, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html]); and we have followed the consultation process in the timetable even though the schedule itself has been considerably delayed while we take account of all of the different interest groups that are relevant to CC licenses.

==Background to Version 3.0==

The process of versioning to 3.0 began back around April 2005 as part of discussions with Debian [http://www.debian.org/] and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [http://mit.edu/] about ways to improve the clarity of our licenses. Although discussions with Debian and MIT initiated consideration of a new license version, ultimately, version 3.0 grew to be about much more than these two projects — it focused on internationalizing the “generic” license and international harmonization of the CC licenses. Additionally, it expanded to encompass Creative Commons' long-held vision [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709] of establishing a compatibility structure to allow interoperability between different flexible content copyright licenses.

===''Debian''===

As you may know, Debian describes itself as “an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system” [http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about] and the volunteer group has worked together to create an operating system called Debian GNU/Linux. The project and all developers working on the project adhere to the Debian Social Contract [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract]. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DSFG) [http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] form part of the Debian Social Contract and define the criteria for “free software” and so what software is permissible in the distribution.

One part of the Debian community is debian-legal [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/] — a mailing list whose members provide “guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system.” [http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html] They work primarily involves reviewing software against the DFSG to determine if the packages constitute “free software” per the DFSG. Contributors to the Debian project can then take these determination into account when making decisions about what to include in individual packages.

From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would satisfy the definition of “free software” according to the DSFG. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. Although debian-legal work primarily in reviewing software programs and Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, debian-legal notes that the:

“Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, sounds, video, or text that are included with the programs in Debian.” (''Id.'')

Consequently, debian-legal reviewed the CC licenses and concluded that none of the Creative Commons core licensees were free according to the DFSG and recommended that works released under these license “should not be included in Debian.” (''Id.'')

It is clear that the licenses that contain a NonCommercial or a NoDerivatives restriction (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives ) will never be able to comply with the DFSG because these violate basic principles articulate in the DSFG — specifically, DSFG 1 which requires that a licensee be able to sell copies of the work, DSFG 3 which requires a license to permit the making of derivative works and DSFG 6 which proscribes discrimination against any field of endeavor.

====DRM====

But this should still leave the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as DSFG-compliant. On reviewing debian-legal’s issues with these licenses, it seemed clear to Creative Commons that, for the most part, minor amendments and clarifications to the licenses should be able to address debian-legal’s concerns. (For an outline of these concerns, see [http://evan.prodromou.name/ccsummary/ccsummary.html]) One topic, however, that was not minor and proved to be much debated as part of the version 3.0 license discussions was the anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses; TPM being technological protection measures such as encryption which have received legal protection in many jurisdictions around the world, which make it a civil (and sometimes) a criminal offence to circumvent these measures.

The Creative Commons licenses prohibit a licensee applying a TPM to a licensed work that restricts the rights granted under the license. (''See e.g.,'' clause 4(a) “You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.” of the CC Attribution license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode])) In essence, this clause is intended to ensure that a person cannot exercise the freedoms granted by a CC license to apply technologies that restrict those freedoms for others.

In Debian’s view, this prohibition violates DSFG #1 because it prevents a licensee from being able to distribute works in the format of their choice. The consequence of this is that CC-licensed content cannot, for example, be included by a licensee in a Sony Playstation game or other platforms that exist on TPM.

An important thing to note, however, is that this limitation only applied to CC licensees. CC licensors are of course free to license their works on a Sony or other TPM-ed platform whilst also CC licensing it. One example of this is the Beastie Boys track ‘Now Get Busy’ that appeared on the WIRED CD under a CC Sampling license [http://creativecommons.org/wired] but was then also made available on iTunes [http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=15146499&selectedItemId=15146497&s=143441 ].

To avoid interfering with the freedom of the licensed content and allowing a licensee to lock up the content on a TPM-ed platform, Debian proposed that CC’s so-called “anti-TPM” provision to allow a licensee to distribute the CC-licensed work in any format, including a TPM-ed format, provided that the license distributed the work in at least one format that did not restrict another person’s exercise of rights under the license. This proposal became known as the “parallel distribution” proposal.

Creative Commons initially agreed to include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the discussion draft for the Version 3.0 amendments. The rationale for this initial acceptance was that it could accommodate the objectives of the anti-TPM clause (being free culture) whilst also addressing Debian’s concerns that people be free to create works for distribution on TPM-ed platforms.

The parallel distribution proposal did not, however, survive discussions with the Creative Commons International affiliates [http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/]. The affiliates are responsible for “porting” the CC licenses to their local jurisdiction (discussed in greater detail below) and for fielding a wide range of questions about CC licenses and their implementation in various projects throughout the world. Based on their experience with the diverse communities that use and rely on CC licenses and explaining the licenses to different constituencies, the CCi affiliates were strongly opposed to the introduction of a parallel distribution scenario for various reasons, including: (1) the lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing “anti-TPM” language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses which defeats alot of the purpose of CC licenses, namely to be simple and easy to use and to understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to technological protection measures in general by many in the CC community.

CC did, however, include the parallel distribution proposal as part of the public license discussions when those were launched in August 2006 (''See'' Mia Garlick, Version 3.0 – Public Discussion, August 9, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003857.html]) so that the community on those lists could debate the merits of the proposal.

The discussions about the parallel distribution proposal on the cc-licenses email list were very intense. Various participants argued in favor of the parallel distribution amendment on the grounds that the “anti-TPM” clause violated DSFG #1 and achieved little, if anything. Taking the advantage of a Sony Playstation again, if CC-licensed content cannot be included in games for the PS2 platform, the CC licensee is restricted in what they can do with the content, the PS2 gamer cannot play a game with CC-licensed content and Sony are unlikely to notice the absence of this content and will continue along as business as usual with a TPM-ed platform, irrespective of any anti-TPM ban in the CC licenses.

When asked about the extent to which there was a demonstrated need by developers (as licensees) to be able to utilize CC-licensed content in TPM-ed environments, advocates of the parallel distribution amendment argued that it was better to address the problem before a need arose.

However, the overall tenor of the cc-licenses list discussions tended not to favor adoption of the parallel distribution proposal. There was concern that if parallel distribution were permitted in the CC licenses this would reinforce, if not expand, a platform monopoly enjoyed by a TPM-ed platform that only allows the playing of TPM-ed content (''See'' Greg London, Re:Subject: Version 3.0 – List Discussion Responses, September 28, 2006, [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004130.html]; ''see also,'' Terry Hancock, Debian and Creative Commons, October 18, 2006, at [http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons]). Other concerns were voiced that the non-TPMed copy may not be able to played as well as the TPM-ed copy and, generally, that the community was not in favor of supporting a TPM option at this stage (For an overview of the discussions, ''see ''the discussion archives for August [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/thread.html], September [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/thread.html] and October [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/thread.html].)

Whether Debian now declare the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses to be free according to the DSFG or not — given all negotiated amendments are included in version 3.0 with the exception of the parallel distribution provision — remains an open question.

Certainly, Debian voted (''See'' ‘General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main, [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001]). earlier in 2006 to allow works licensed under the Free Documentation License to be used in Debian projects. The vote specifically says that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL does not render the FDL incompatible with the DSFG. However, it is not clear whether this treatment is an exception or will also enable the CC Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike license to also be held to be compatible with the DSFG.

===''MIT''===

With MIT, their OpenCourseWare (OCW) project [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html] was initially launched in September 2002 prior to the formal release of the Creative Commons core licensing suite in December 2002 and thus, used an early version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. “OpenCourseWare” is the free and open digital publication of high quality educational materials, organized as courses [http://www.ksaday.com]. Flexible licenses such as Creative Commons licenses are key to enabling the openness of these materials.

MIT’s OpenCourseWare project has initiated a global opencourseware movement. Most recently, the OpenCourseWare Consortium [http://ocwconsortium.org/] has been formed which involves the collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations from around the world — including China, France, Japan, the UK, the USA and Vietnam — who are committed to creating a broad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model.

Given CC licenses have improved over time, both CC and MIT wanted to work together to address any issues MIT had about the CC licenses so that MIT could switch over to a more recent version of the CC BY-NC-SA license. However, a key concern for MIT, given its illustrious reputation, is to ensure that when people translate and locally adapt MIT content under the terms of the BY-NC-SA license, they make it clear that they are doing so under the terms of the license and not as a result of a special relationship between MIT and that person — essentially, a “No Endorsement” clause.

Given “No Endorsement” clauses are a standard feature of free and open source software, CC felt that it would be easy issue to make this express in the CC licenses. In CC’s view, a licensee should not interpret the attribution requirement of the CC licenses as a basis (whether intentionally or not) to misrepresent the nature of the relationship with the licensor. Certainly, in most jurisdictions laws other than copyright law will proscribe this misconduct by a licensee. But CC agreed with MIT that it was useful to make this express in the license — both to give the licensor comfort and to ensure that the licensee was under no misapprehensions.

This feedback from both Debian and MIT was the impetus for CC commencing the version 3.0 process. However, as many projects do — versioning to 3.0 rapidly developed to encompass new and additional issues. These issues can effectively be described as further internationalization and international harmonization of the CC licenses

==Further Internationalization==

When CC’s core licensing suite was first released in December 2002, the licenses were drafted based on US copyright law and referred to as the “generic” license because the license did not identify a specific jurisdiction or governing law to apply to the interpretation of the license. Towards the end of 2003, Creative Commons launched its license internationalization project [http://creativecommons.org/international/], which involves the “porting” of the generic licenses to different jurisdictions around the world.

Since this project started, the CC core licenses have been “ported” to over 45 jurisdictions around the world to countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, China, France, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. (''Id.'')

While the internationalization has taken off far beyond Creative Commons’ expectations and has demonstrated the amazing energy around the globe for a more flexible and permissive copyright licensing approach, two issues arose.

The first is that as Creative Commons’ license internationalization project continued to grow, the “generic” license and the US license were one and the same. For the casual visitor to the CC International page (''Id.''), it seemed that the licenses had not been “ported” to the US, when in fact they had started out there. The challenge becomes though — if CC recognizes a specific US license, on what law should the “generic” license be based?

The approach Creative Commons adopted to respond this issue required further internationalization of our licenses. We decided to spin off the “generic” license to be a US license and recraft the “generic” license to have it utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law.

The new license relies on the language of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/], the Rome Convention of 1961 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/], the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/], the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 [http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/] and the Universal Copyright Convention [http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml ]. Because treaties are matters of international agreement between countries and, as a general rule, require adoption into national law to be effective in a particular country, simply basing the license wording on these treaties is not, of itself, sufficient. Consequently, clause 8(f) of the new generic specifically provides that the license takes effect according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law.

To reflect the nature of the new “generic” license we also decided to change its name to “unported.” This description is intended to highlight the different nature of the new generic license and to utilize the “porting” terminology that Creative Commons has been using in its license internationalization project since its launch in 2003 to more clearly illustrate the nature of the license that has not been adapted for a local jurisdiction.

The result of this further internationalization is that CC will now offer both an “unported” license and a US license, in addition to the 45-plus ported licenses; the unported license can be selected by those creators to whose jurisdiction CC has not yet ported a license.

===''International Harmonization – Moral Rights''===

The second more major issue that arose through the porting process was that different jurisdictions had different approaches to issues relating to moral rights and collecting societies.

Moral rights, to describe them briefly, are author’s right that are distinct from the economic copyright that can be bought and sold (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights]). Moral rights recognize an author’s personal attachment to their creativity and seek to protect that connection.

While there can be many different moral rights depending on the jurisdiction, the two main ones that are consistently present in most countries around the globe are the moral right of attribution and the moral right of integrity (''See ''Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (as amended September 1979) [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726]). Obviously, since attribution became a default CC license characteristic with version 2.0 there is less of an issue regarding the moral right of attribution.

However, the moral right of integrity presents a more complex issue for Creative Commons licenses. CC licenses are intended to enable and promote reuse of creative content, particularly the making of derivative works. And those copyright owners who use CC licenses have acknowledged this with over two-thirds of CC licensors consistently choosing to allow derivative works.

But the moral right of integrity, as a general rule, gives the author of a creative work the right to object to alterations or mutilations of the work that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor. Obviously, this has potential to impact the freedom to exercise the right to make derivatives — a derivative will likely always qualify as an alteration of the original work and there may be some instances where it is arguable that it is prejudicial to the original author’s reputation or honor.

Obviously, the first generic version 1.0 license suite released in December 2002 did not mention moral rights because it was based on US copyright law and US copyright law only grants very limited moral rights to works of fine art. However, as the CC licenses began the porting process to other countries, it became necessary for CC licenses to address the moral right of integrity.

To do so, the Creative Commons licenses, with one exception, have taken the approach of not interfering with the author’s moral right of integrity in those jurisdictions that recognize this right.

The one exception is in Canada where the moral right of integrity is waivable. Because Canada was one of the first ten countries to port the CC licenses and one of the first (if not the only) to have a waivable moral right of integrity, on advice of our local affiliate, the CC Canada licenses choose to waive the right of integrity in order to ensure that the licensor’s intention in choosing to permit derivative works was not compromised. However, in all other CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity, the right was retained albeit in different forms; again, on advice from local affiliates.

For example, in most European jurisdictions, the right was expressly retained in the Legal Code because of the strong level of protection for the right in these jurisdictions, as evidenced by the fact that courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include it. In most Latin American jurisdictions, the license was not expressly retained in the Legal Code on the rationale that courts would read it in the license. In Japan, the moral right of integrity was retained in those licenses that prohibited derivative works but not fully retained in those licenses that permit derivative works. The local CC Japan team recommended this approach because the moral right of integrity can be interpreted so broadly as to render any change or alteration to the original work a violation of the right.

Although there is overall consistency in the treatment of the moral right of integrity at the Legal Code level (with the exception of Canada) among the CC licenses, now that the licenses have been ported to over 30 jurisdictions, we felt that it was time to harmonize the approach to this issue at both the Legal Code level and the Commons Deed level. The different approaches towards recognizing the right of integrity in the CC licenses arose because, as CC engaged in the novel process of license porting, we became familiar with the different treatment of this right in different jurisdictions. With the benefit of experience with more than 30 different treatments, CC now felt comfortable to adopt a unified approach.

As a consequence, as part of version 3.0 all CC licenses for jurisdictions that recognize the moral right of integrity will expressly retain that right in the Legal Code to the extent that this is feasible given the status of derivative works under the license. In those jurisdictions in which retention of the moral right of integrity may be completely block exercise of the derivative works right (ie. in Japan) the right will be tempered to the extent necessary to enable the exercise of the derivative works right in a manner intended by the licensor.

In addition, because of the importance of the moral right of integrity in protecting both the author’s rights and for its impact on the derivative works right, from version 3.0 the CC Commons Deeds will clearly state that the author retains their moral rights.

===International Harmonization — Collecting Societies===

Collecting societies are organizations that are established either by private agreements between copyright owners or by copyright law (''See generally,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collecting_society]). Societies license works and process royalty payments from various individuals and groups who use copyrighted works either as part of a statutory scheme (compulsory schemes) or by entering into an agreement with the copyright owner to represent the owners interests when dealing with licensees and potential licensees (voluntary schemes). The rationale underlying societies is that it is more efficient and effective for copyright holders to be represented collectively in negotiating and levying license fees.

CC licenses also contained different treatments of whether and how a licensor can collect royalties via collecting societies because of the differences in the status of collecting societies amongst different jurisdictions.

In the United States, where the CC licenses originated, an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses for those of their works that suit them. This is because of the rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the US during the early 20th century that requires that US collecting societies take a non-exclusive license from artists. This allows artists to then engage in direct licensing, including via CC licenses, to their fans and others who wish to share and remix their music.

Consequently, in the original CC licenses language was introduced into the licenses as part of version 2.0 to clarify what was considered to be the obvious interaction between CC licenses and collecting society membership. This initial approach stated that under those licenses that permitted commercial use (Attribution, Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-ShareAlike) the licensor waived the right to collect both compulsory and voluntary royalties. Under those licenses that permitted noncommercial use only, the licensor reserved the right to collect royalties for any uses that were commercial in nature but otherwise authorized royalty-free noncommercial use of the work under the CC license. This approach reflected the fact that by choosing to apply a CC license to their work, a CC licensor clearly intends to permit “free” (as in both price and freedom) uses under the terms of the applicable CC license.

However, the situation regarding collecting society membership in many other jurisdictions around the world is remarkably different to the US position. Elsewhere, collecting societies take either an assignment of copyright ownership or an exclusive license to a work of the rights that they represent (which tends to include all of the works an artist creates). This means, for the most part, that an artist cannot directly license their works online, including via CC licenses. The consequence of this is that artists who use CC licenses cannot receive voluntary royalties collected by a society because they are not able to become a member of the society.

Thus, the treatment of collecting society royalties in the CC licenses differed according to the jurisdiction — in many jurisdictions the collection of voluntary royalties was not mentioned so as not to give any misleading impression that membership of a collecting society was possible for a CC licensor. In addition, many CC licenses retained the right to collect compulsory royalties in all licenses, both those that permitted commercial use and those that permit noncommercial use only, because of the advice of local affiliates that local law would not permit the waiver of such a right.

In version 3.0, after the benefit of seeing the different permutations of collecting society membership in over 30 countries and having had a dedicated team working on the issue of the interaction of CC licenses and collecting society membership for more than a year, CC has decided to harmonize the treatment of collecting societies in the CC licenses.

The harmonized approach still allows different jurisdictions to adopt an approach towards collective royalty collection that suits their jurisdiction but ensures that this is consistently applied across jurisdictions. Specifically, as regards compulsory royalty collection, the licensor will reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived. In those jurisdictions in compulsory royalty collection can be waived, it will be waived completely for those licenses that permit commercial use and reserved only for commercial uses in those licenses that permit noncommercial use only.

For voluntary royalties, the licensor will reserve the right to collect this “in the event that they are a member of a collecting society” that collects such royalties. This then allows for those jurisdictions in which an artist can be a member of a collecting society and use CC licenses. It also allows for flexibility for those artists who are members of collecting societies and use CC licenses anyway or if in future collecting society membership structures do allow some use of CC licenses, to also enjoy the benefits of their membership if their collecting society moves towards being able to collect for commercial uses of CC-licensed works.

==BY-SA — Compatibility Structure Introduced==

A final change incorporated into Version 3.0 is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses now include a compatibility structure that will enable CC to certify particular licenses, stewarded by other organizations similarly committed to promoting a freer culture, as being compatible with the CC BY-SA. Once certified as compatible [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses], licensees of both the BY-SA 3.0 and the certified CC compatible license will be able to relicense derivatives under either license (eg., under either the BY-SA or the certified CC compatible license).

Creative Commons CEO Lawrence Lessig first outlined the vision of allowing an ecology of flexible content licenses to flourish in November 2005 (''See'' CC in Review: Lawrence Lessig on Compatibility, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709]). As Lessig explained:

"Even if all the creative work you want to remix is licensed under a copyleft license, because those licenses are different licenses, you can’t take creative work from one, and remix it in another. Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only. And the same is true of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that governs Opsound content, as well as much of the creativity within Flickr. All of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental value of every significant advance in the digital age — interoperability."

This incompatibility also serves as a barrier to dual licensing works under the FDL and [http://hotels-ferienhaus.blogage.de CC BY-SA] (''See'' Evan Prodromou, Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works, May 3, 2005 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002265.html]).

Simply put, the problem is that any license with a "ShareAlike" or similar copyleft provision requires that any derivatives be licensed under exactly the same license (or family of licenses) as the original. This means that an article about Rio de Janeiro on Wikipedia [http://wikipedia.org/] (which is currently licensed under the FDL) cannot be mixed with an article about Rio on Wikitravel [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page] (which is currently licensed under the CC BY-SA 1.0). Even if a project were dual licensed, none of the derivatives of the project could be returned back to the dual-licensed project (because they must be licensed under one ''or'' the other license), thus causing "project bleed." The result of the ShareAlike or "copyleft" license terms is seemingly antithetical to the very purpose of the licenses that contain them. Content, rather than being "free" to remix, is instead locked within particular licensing systems.

Consequently, CC has been working to ensure that, to again quote Lessig:

"[C]reative work[s] will more easily be able to move from one license to another, as creativity is remixed. And this ability for creative work to move to compatible free licenses will provide a market signal about which licenses are deemed more stable, or reliable, by the free licensing community. Free culture will no longer be ghettoized within a particular free license. It will instead be able to move among all relevantly compatible licenses. And the world of “autistic freedom” that governs much of the free software world will be avoided in the free culture world."

There are several obvious candidates for compatibility with the [http://lifestyle.blogpaint.com CC BY-SA]. The Free Art License [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/] and the Free Software Foundation's Free Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html].

Creative Commons' initial work has focused on achieving compatibility with the FDL. As part of this work, CC explored the possibility of introducing one-way compatibility with the FDL. (''See'' Discussion Draft — Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5701]), which generated some discussion. CC then responded to some of the concerns raised by this discussion [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5731] but ultimately concluded that one-way comaptibility with the FDL was not possible because CC licensors could not be guaranteed the same protections under the FDL that they enjoyed under the CC BY-SA.

Despite the inability to implement one-way compatibility with the [http://hamburgnagelstudio.wordpress.com FDL], Creative Commons is still hopeful of being able to announce licenses that effect the same freedoms as the CC BY-SA to be compatible with the CC BY-SA at some date in the future. To allow the compatibility negotiations to occur separate and apart from the timing of the license versioning process, we have included a structure for certifying licenses as compatible with CC BY-SA as part of Version 3.0 (''See'' Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]).

==Summary of Links==

The following list provides the CC blog posts that relate to Version 3.0:

* Getting to Version 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908]
* Version 3.0 — Public Discussion Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017]
* Version 3.0 — Revised License Drafts [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6120]
* Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7234]
* Version 3.0 — Launched [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249]
* [[Versioning to 3.0]] - Legal Leads versioning to 3.0. Includes checklist, working document, sui generis database rights document, and CS document

[[Category:Project]]

Developers

2012-05-16T00:50:41Z

Tenanaon:

<div style="font-size:125%; line-height:1.75em; margin-bottom:1.75em;"><strong>Welcome to the CC Developer Community!</strong> The CC Developer Community is the place to find all about the various software and technical projects that happen within Creative Commons, and the larger CC community. All of the projects developed at Creative Commons are open source [http://www.planetsofts.com software], and just like most open source projects, outside involvement is key to its success. Be sure to [[Special:Userlogin|create a wiki accou]][http://shoppingboss.blogspot.com/ nt] or [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin login with Open][http://car-insurance-auto1.blogspot.com/ ID] so you can add to this wiki and help it grow.
<br />
There are many ways of interacting with the CC Developer Community, pick your point of entry below:
</div>

<div style="padding:1.25em 1em; margin-left:-1em; margin-right:-1em; -moz-border-radius:5px; -webkit-border-radius:5px; background-color: #eaeaea; overflow: auto;">
{{PageColumn|
=== Integrate CC license data into applications ===
[[Integrate|Integrating CC license data]] into desktop or web-based applications provides users huge benefits: they get to decide how their work is licensed from the start.
* I want to do this for '''[[Desktop Integration|desktop applicatio]][http://playgames200.blogspot.com/ ns]'''
* I want to do this for '''[[Web Integration|web applications]]'''

=== Translate ===
There are many opportunities to help the Creative Commons community with translations. Check out the [[Translate]] page for an overview.

=== Join the Discussion ===
The Developer Community is more than the sum of software written, it is also the conversations that the community has; what is important, what to do next, how to improve the old.

* '''[[Mailing Lists|Mailing Lis]][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/01/4shared-com.html ts]'''
** [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-dev][http://browsergames10.blogspot.com/ el] [http://www.ksaday.com/ berita terbaru] is the primary developer mailing list.
* '''[[IRC]]'''
** #cc on the Freenode IRC network.
* '''[http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/ Issue Tracking] / [http://www.ksaday.com/ ksaday][http://fashiongarten.blogspot.com/ ing]'''
** See what we're working on.
* '''[http://labs.creativecommons.org Blog]'''
** CC Labs, our technology blog.
}}
{{PageColumn|
=== Participate in Developer Challenges ===
[[Developer Challenges|Creative Commons Developer Challenge]][http://spielegames1.blogspot.com/ s] are a great way of joining the community and producing software that others have already expressed interest in using!

==== Developer Challenges currently open (first 15): ====
{{#ask:
[[Category:Challenge]] [[Has Challenge Type::Developer]] [[Is Complete::false]]
| ?Related To
| limit=15
}}

}}</div>
<br clear="all"/>

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:Programadores, Ru:Разработчикам, Vi:Phát Triển Viên
}}

[[Category:Developer]]

__NOTOC__

Finding OER

2012-05-10T04:02:01Z

Tenanaon:

There are many different ways to search and discover Open Educational Resources.

== OER specific search ==
* [http://discovered.creativecommons.org/search/ DiscoverEd]

== OER repositories ==
* [http://www.curriki.org/ Curriki]
* [http://www.oercommons.org/ OER Commons]
* [http://cnx.org/ Connexions]
* [http://www.ocwconsortium.org/ OpenCourseWare Consortium]: [http://www.ocwconsortium.org/courses/ocwsites Index of OCW Websites][http://www.ksaday.com ing]
* [http://open.jorum.ac.uk/ JorumOpen]
* [http://www.eol.org/ The Encyclopedia of Life]

== General search engines ==
* [http://www.google.com/advanced_search Google search] (use "Usage rights" option)
* [http://search.yahoo.com/cc Yahoo! CC Search]
* [http://www.bing.com/ Bing]

== Developers ==

See ''[[Towards a Global Infrastructure For Sharing Learning Resources]]''.
{{OER Nav}}

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:Descobrir Recursos OER
}}

[[Category:OER Search]]

Filmmaker

2012-05-07T23:23:14Z

Tenanaon:

Creative Commons licenses are a flexible way to share content while building on the strong foundation of traditional copyright law.

Simply put, Creative Commons licenses allow the shift from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved,” enabling you to share your work under terms of your own choosing. This gives you control over distribution, and the non-exclusivity of the licenses means you can retain all commercial rights if desired.

Creative Commons licenses all start with an attribution (BY) condition attached. This simply means that when content is used or shared the original creator needs to be credited. The BY condition can stand on its own as a license or, more commonly, with other conditions attached.

A Non-Commercial, or NC, condition can be attached to prohibit commercial use. A no-derivative, or ND, condition can be attached to allow verbatim sharing but no adapting or remixing. If derivatives are allowed a ShareAlike, or SA condition can be attached to ensure that any remixes or mash-ups are released under the same terms you originally specified.

That's it. These Creative Commons conditions provide a simple and easy way to mitigate the hassle of sharing a film online and encouraging dialog around a film's release.

How filmmakers have used a few of the different CC licenses in the past:

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ CC BY-NC-ND]'''
''Viral campaigns, Trailers, and Digital Sharing''
:This license allows individuals to copy and share works, but restricts both derivative works and commercial use. Ideal for trailers, free downloads, and viral campaigns that require the source material to remain unaltered.

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ CC BY-NC-SA]'''
''Remix Contests, Community Edits, and Source Material''
:This license allows the public to use content in a non-commercial context - ideal for both source material (remix contests & community edits) or as part of a broader distribution plan. Additionally, this license specifies that any remix or new work must be shared under the same BY-NC-SA license, retaining the NC condition for all remixes.

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC BY-SA]'''
''Distribution and Non-Filmic Materials''
:By removing the non-commercial condition, this license encourages commercial entities (film societies, theaters, TV stations, etc.) to promote and use the film in their own realm. For independent filmmakers, this lowers transaction costs across the board and increases the visibility of their film through traditional channels of distribution. Similarly, non-filmic materials can be easily spread and shared, which results in additional promotion of the film.

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC BY]'''
''Press-ready materials''
:The BY license is the least restrictive Creative Commons license - as such it encourages the most reuse of content. This is ideal for short clips, production stills, press copies, and bios as the content can easily be worked into any coverage.

==Film Examples==
These case studies can help you learn more about how filmmakers use Creative Commons licenses in their work.

====[[Case_Studies/Sita_Sings_The_Blues|Sita Sings The Blues]]====
Talented animator, writer and producer Nina Paley released her film, Sita Sings the Blues, for free under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license in March of 2009. An adaptation of the Indian myth Ramayana, Sita Sings The Blues was renowned not only for its filmic merit - it received critical acclaim from the New York Times, Roger Ebert, and many others - but also for Paley's well-documented struggle with song-clearing rights. Her struggles with clearing these rights informed her decision to openly license Sita, thereby ensuring that her film would always remain easy to obtain and that any derivative works would also remain open and free. Sita Sings The Blues has been downloaded over 150,000 times on Archive.org alone. In allowing commercial reuse, Paley gave others a financial incentive to promote her film and distribute it for her - a 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal assessed its revenue at $55,000, an impressive amount for a film that had spent nothing on promotion or advertising. Similarly, the film's popularity has given Paley a platform for speaking arrangements, a financially lucrative market.

====[[Case_Studies/RIP:_A_Remix_Manifesto|RiP: A Remix Manifesto]]====
RiP: A Remix Manifesto was released under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license, allowing the film to be shared broadly across the web and enabling interesting paths for derivative works. Conceived by documentarian Brett Gaylor, community editing of the film was achieved through open-source video platform Kaltura; the soundtrack was similarly sourced through music community ccMixter and released under the same license. The film, which follows the story of DJ/mash-up artist Gregg Gillis (Girl Talk) features interviews with leaders from the free culture world and paints an intriguing picture of the current legal landscape for musicians that rely on sampling as an artistic technique. More impressively, the film was nominated as a candidate for Best Feature Documentary at the 2010 Genie Awards, the Canadian equivalent of the Oscars.

====[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21398 Vincent Moon]====
Filmmaker and artist Vincent Moon first gained notoriety with his verité style performance pieces for French music blog La Blogotheque. Over the past seven years his creative output has been prolific, releasing music documentaries that range from impromptu performance Take Away Shows to event-based projects like Temporary Areas to Long Portrait features on rare musicians. Most recently, he launched a new label [http://petitesplanetes.cc/ petites planétes], which also features music documentaries in his distinct and influential aesthetic. All of his work is available under a CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA license.

====[[Case_Studies/Nasty_Old_People|Nasty Old People]]====
Nasty Old People, a feature film from Swedish director Hanna Sköld, premiered on October 10th 2009 at Kontrapunkt, a gallery space in Malmö, Sweeden. The film was simultaneously released on The Pirate Bay (and other bittorrent sites) under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike license. The film's free online distribution increased visibility around the project, which led to community donations that have helped Sköld recoup much of her initial investment (a €10,000 bank loan). The film, which is originally in Swedish, has seen sixteen different subtitle tracks created by its community, a process legally enabled by allowing derivative works.

====[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7775 Tracey Fragments]====
To promote The Tracey Fragments, a Canadian film starring Ellen Page, director Bruce McDonald turned to CC licensing. Specifically, all of the footage from the film was released online under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike license for fans to download and rework into music videos, new trailers, or even to edit and remix the entire movie. The film's soundtrack, written by indie collective Broken Social Scene, was also released under CC BY-NC-SA. To further promote the project, a remix contest was held in which the winner recieved a Tracey Fragments/Final Cut Studio prize package.

====[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13498 Two Fists, One Heart]====
Australian family drama Two Fists, One Heart saw a wide-release in its home country that was coupled with a stand-alone site, Cut Your Own Scene, where fans could download rushes (unedited footage) of the film for free under a CC Attribution license. Footage from the film could be put to any use as long as Two Fists, One Heart was attributed with a link back to the official movie page. Much of the footage was unused in the film, maximizing the usefulness of a resource that would normally have been wasted. To encourage reuse of the footage, the five best scenes were posted on the Two Fists, One Heart promotional site and the winners received personal feedback on their edits and film careers.

====[[Case_Studies/Blender_Foundation|Blender Foundation]]====
Blender is a free, open source, 3D content creation suite used by bedroom auteurs to The History Channel. To promote the project, two short films, [http://www.elephantsdream.org/ Elephants Dream] and [http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ Big Buck Bunny], were released online under a CC BY license with wide-ranging benefits. First, the films acted as teaching tools - all the files were included in the release and those looking to better understand the program could use them to see how different compositional techniques were achieved. Second, the films generated positive promotion from having an easily shareable (and enjoyable) short film - not only were the films discussed and promoted online (promoting the Blender platform in the process) but Big Buck Bunny saw unsolicited airplay from a Worchester, MA local TV station. Lastly, the CC license enabled the creators to "give [their community] back the project results in a way [they] would have liked to receive it... meaning, freedom to re-use, also for commercial work."

==More CC Films==
'''Browse [[Films|this list]] of feature-length or otherwise highly notable films under CC licenses. Feel free to [[Films|add more]]!'''

Here's a brief sampling:
*'''The Cosmonaut''': http://www.thecosmonaut.org/ and business plan incorporating CC http://elcosmonauta.es/plan_and_annexes.zip
*'''Sarawak Gone''': http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Association_for_Progressive_Communications_Australia, http://www.toysatellite.org/sarawak-gone/, http://www.toysatellite.org/sarawak-gone/license/
*'''Iron Sky''': http://www.ironsky.net/
*'''Cafune''': http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6048
*'''Engage Media''': http://www.engagemedia.org/help/open-content-licensing/?searchterm=%22creative%20commons%22
*'''A Swarm of Angels''': http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/A_Swarm_of_Angels
*'''Copy, damn! or Copiad, malditos!''': (CC BY-NC) http://www.rtve.es/television/documentales/copiad-malditos/
* '''[[A Swarm of Angels]]''': A Swarm of Angels is a groundbreaking project to create a £1 million film and give it away to over 1 million people using the Internet and a global community of members.
* '''[[Chris Denaro]]''': Chris Denaro is an Australian animator who examines industrial processes of prototyping, incorporating Creative Commons materials into his animations to bring spontaneity and serendipity to his works.
* '''[[Following Alexis West]]''': Following Alexis West is a documentary film which examines the effect of New Zealand’s switch to a proportional representation system has had on its politics and culture since 1996.
* '''[[Jay Dedman]]''': Jay Dedman is a long time videoblogger creating online communities where people can learn, share, and remix their ideas.
* '''[[Show Some Color]]''': Show Some Color is a project by the Fabricatorz production group that invites individual women to create videos on their racial identities.
* '''[http://www.ilov.tv/ ilov.tv]''': Online documentary series about people who love what they do under CC BY-NC-ND

==External Resources==

* The [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/ Center for Social Media] at [http://www.american.edu/ American University] produced two helpful guides for filmmakers.
** [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-materials/documents/answers-common-ip-questions-independent-documentary-filmmaker/ Answers to Common IP Questions for the Independent Documentary Filmmaker] provides advice on common Intellectual Property issues faced by filmmakers. Section III specifically talks about the use of Creative Commons licenses.
** [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/statement_of_best_practices_in_fair_use/ Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use] - From the website: "Documentary filmmakers have created, through their professional associations, a clear, easy to understand statement of fair and reasonable approaches to fair use."
** [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/ Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online] [http://walletputih.blogspot.com/ Video] - From the website: "This document is a code of best practices that helps creators, online providers, copyright holders, and others interested in the making of online video interpret the copyright doctrine of fair use."
* [http://www.netribution.co.uk Netribution] has an article titled [http://www.netribution.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1195 "Creative Commons: An introduction for filmmakers"]
* [http://support.creativecommons.org/videos Videos] produced by [http://creativecommons.org Creative Commons] to describe what it means to license your work under a CC license.

Filmmaker

2012-05-07T23:21:28Z

Tenanaon:

Creative Commons licenses are a flexible way to share content while building on the strong foundation of traditional copyright law.

Simply put, Creative Commons licenses allow the shift from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved,” enabling you to share your work under terms of your own choosing. This gives you control over distribution, and the non-exclusivity of the licenses means you can retain all commercial rights if desired.

Creative Commons licenses all start with an attribution (BY) condition attached. This simply means that when content is used or shared the original creator needs to be credited. The BY condition can stand on its own as a license or, more commonly, with other conditions attached.

A Non-Commercial, or NC, condition can be attached to prohibit commercial use. A no-derivative, or ND, condition can be attached to allow verbatim sharing but no adapting or remixing. If derivatives are allowed a ShareAlike, or SA condition can be attached to ensure that any remixes or mash-ups are released under the same terms you originally specified.

That's it. These Creative Commons conditions provide a simple and easy way to mitigate the hassle of sharing a film online and encouraging dialog around a film's release.

How filmmakers have used a few of the different CC licenses in the past:

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ CC BY-NC-ND]'''
''Viral campaigns, Trailers, and Digital Sharing''
:This license allows individuals to copy and share works, but restricts both derivative works and commercial use. Ideal for trailers, free downloads, and viral campaigns that require the source material to remain unaltered.

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ CC BY-NC-SA]'''
''Remix Contests, Community Edits, and Source Material''
:This license allows the public to use content in a non-commercial context - ideal for both source material (remix contests & community edits) or as part of a broader distribution plan. Additionally, this license specifies that any remix or new work must be shared under the same BY-NC-SA license, retaining the NC condition for all remixes.

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC BY-SA]'''
''Distribution and Non-Filmic Materials''
:By removing the non-commercial condition, this license encourages commercial entities (film societies, theaters, TV stations, etc.) to promote and use the film in their own realm. For independent filmmakers, this lowers transaction costs across the board and increases the visibility of their film through traditional channels of distribution. Similarly, non-filmic materials can be easily spread and shared, which results in additional promotion of the film.

'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC BY]'''
''Press-ready materials''
:The BY license is the least restrictive Creative Commons license - as such it encourages the most reuse of content. This is ideal for short clips, production stills, press copies, and bios as the content can easily be worked into any coverage.

==Film Examples==
These case studies can help you learn more about how filmmakers use Creative Commons licenses in their work.

====[[Case_Studies/Sita_Sings_The_Blues|Sita Sings The Blues]]====
Talented animator, writer and producer Nina Paley released her film, Sita Sings the Blues, for free under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license in March of 2009. An adaptation of the Indian myth Ramayana, Sita Sings The Blues was renowned not only for its filmic merit - it received critical acclaim from the New York Times, Roger Ebert, and many others - but also for Paley's well-documented struggle with song-clearing rights. Her struggles with clearing these rights informed her decision to openly license Sita, thereby ensuring that her film would always remain easy to obtain and that any derivative works would also remain open and free. Sita Sings The Blues has been downloaded over 150,000 times on Archive.org alone. In allowing commercial reuse, Paley gave others a financial incentive to promote her film and distribute it for her - a 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal assessed its revenue at $55,000, an impressive amount for a film that had spent nothing on promotion or advertising. Similarly, the film's popularity has given Paley a platform for speaking arrangements, a financially lucrative market.

====[[Case_Studies/RIP:_A_Remix_Manifesto|RiP: A Remix Manifesto]]====
RiP: A Remix Manifesto was released under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license, allowing the film to be shared broadly across the web and enabling interesting paths for derivative works. Conceived by documentarian Brett Gaylor, community editing of the film was achieved through open-source video platform Kaltura; the soundtrack was similarly sourced through music community ccMixter and released under the same license. The film, which follows the story of DJ/mash-up artist Gregg Gillis (Girl Talk) features interviews with leaders from the free culture world and paints an intriguing picture of the current legal landscape for musicians that rely on sampling as an artistic technique. More impressively, the film was nominated as a candidate for Best Feature Documentary at the 2010 Genie Awards, the Canadian equivalent of the Oscars.

====[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21398 Vincent Moon]====
Filmmaker and artist Vincent Moon first gained notoriety with his verité style performance pieces for French music blog La Blogotheque. Over the past seven years his creative output has been prolific, releasing music documentaries that range from impromptu performance Take Away Shows to event-based projects like Temporary Areas to Long Portrait features on rare musicians. Most recently, he launched a new label [http://petitesplanetes.cc/ petites planétes], which also features music documentaries in his distinct and influential aesthetic. All of his work is available under a CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA license.

====[[Case_Studies/Nasty_Old_People|Nasty Old People]]====
Nasty Old People, a feature film from Swedish director Hanna Sköld, premiered on October 10th 2009 at Kontrapunkt, a gallery space in Malmö, Sweeden. The film was simultaneously released on The Pirate Bay (and other bittorrent sites) under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike license. The film's free online distribution increased visibility around the project, which led to community donations that have helped Sköld recoup much of her initial investment (a €10,000 bank loan). The film, which is originally in Swedish, has seen sixteen different subtitle tracks created by its community, a process legally enabled by allowing derivative works.

====[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7775 Tracey Fragments]====
To promote The Tracey Fragments, a Canadian film starring Ellen Page, director Bruce McDonald turned to CC licensing. Specifically, all of the footage from the film was released online under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike license for fans to download and rework into music videos, new trailers, or even to edit and remix the entire movie. The film's soundtrack, written by indie collective Broken Social Scene, was also released under CC BY-NC-SA. To further promote the project, a remix contest was held in which the winner recieved a Tracey Fragments/Final Cut Studio prize package.

====[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13498 Two Fists, One Heart]====
Australian family drama Two Fists, One Heart saw a wide-release in its home country that was coupled with a stand-alone site, Cut Your Own Scene, where fans could download rushes (unedited footage) of the film for free under a CC Attribution license. Footage from the film could be put to any use as long as Two Fists, One Heart was attributed with a link back to the official movie page. Much of the footage was unused in the film, maximizing the usefulness of a resource that would normally have been wasted. To encourage reuse of the footage, the five best scenes were posted on the Two Fists, One Heart promotional site and the winners received personal feedback on their edits and film careers.

====[[Case_Studies/Blender_Foundation|Blender Foundation]]====
Blender is a free, open source, 3D content creation suite used by bedroom auteurs to The History Channel. To promote the project, two short films, [http://www.elephantsdream.org/ Elephants Dream] and [http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ Big Buck Bunny], were released online under a CC BY license with wide-ranging benefits. First, the films acted as teaching tools - all the files were included in the release and those looking to better understand the program could use them to see how different compositional techniques were achieved. Second, the films generated positive promotion from having an easily shareable (and enjoyable) short film - not only were the films discussed and promoted online (promoting the Blender platform in the process) but Big Buck Bunny saw unsolicited airplay from a Worchester, MA local TV station. Lastly, the CC license enabled the creators to "give [their community] back the project results in a way [they] would have liked to receive it... meaning, freedom to re-use, also for commercial work."

==More CC Films==
'''Browse [[Films|this list]] of feature-length or otherwise highly notable films under CC licenses. Feel free to [[Films|add more]]!'''

Here's a brief sampling:
*'''The Cosmonaut''': http://www.thecosmonaut.org/ and business plan incorporating CC http://elcosmonauta.es/plan_and_annexes.zip
*'''Sarawak Gone''': http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Association_for_Progressive_Communications_Australia, http://www.toysatellite.org/sarawak-gone/, http://www.toysatellite.org/sarawak-gone/license/
*'''Iron Sky''': http://www.ironsky.net/
*'''Cafune''': http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6048
*'''Engage Media''': http://www.engagemedia.org/help/open-content-licensing/?searchterm=%22creative%20commons%22
*'''A Swarm of Angels''': http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/A_Swarm_of_Angels
*'''Copy, damn! or Copiad, malditos!''': (CC BY-NC) http://www.rtve.es/television/documentales/copiad-malditos/
* '''[[A Swarm of Angels]]''': A Swarm of Angels is a groundbreaking project to create a £1 million film and give it away to over 1 million people using the Internet and a global community of members.
* '''[[Chris Denaro]]''': Chris Denaro is an Australian animator who examines industrial processes of prototyping, incorporating Creative Commons materials into his animations to bring spontaneity and serendipity to his works.
* '''[[Following Alexis West]]''': Following Alexis West is a documentary film which examines the effect of New Zealand’s switch to a proportional representation system has had on its politics and culture since 1996.
* '''[[Jay Dedman]]''': Jay Dedman is a long time videoblogger creating online communities where people can learn, share, and remix their ideas.
* '''[[Show Some Color]]''': Show Some Color is a project by the Fabricatorz production group that invites individual women to create videos on their racial identities.
* '''[http://www.ilov.tv/ ilov.tv]''': Online documentary series about people who love what they do under CC BY-NC-ND

==External Resources==

* The [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/ Center for Social Media] at [http://www.american.edu/ American University] produced two helpful guides for filmmakers.
** [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-materials/documents/answers-common-ip-questions-independent-documentary-filmmaker/ Answers to Common IP Questions for the Independent Documentary Filmmaker] provides advice on common Intellectual Property issues faced by filmmakers. Section III specifically talks about the use of Creative Commons licenses.
** [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/statement_of_best_practices_in_fair_use/ Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use] - From the website: "Documentary filmmakers have created, through their professional associations, a clear, easy to understand statement of fair and reasonable approaches to fair use."
** [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/ Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online [http://walletputih.blogspot.com/ Video] - From the website: "This document is a code of best practices that helps creators, online providers, copyright holders, and others interested in the making of online video interpret the copyright doctrine of fair use."
* [http://www.netribution.co.uk Netribution] has an article titled [http://www.netribution.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1195 "Creative Commons: An introduction for filmmakers"]
* [http://support.creativecommons.org/videos Videos] produced by [http://creativecommons.org Creative Commons] to describe what it means to license your work under a CC license.

Social Justice

2012-05-07T23:19:07Z

Tenanaon:

Examples of CC-licensing in social justice and human rights projects.

== Global ==

[http://www.apc.org The Association of Progressive Communications] which works for human rights and social justice in ICT's uses CC on their website, and some publications.

[http://www.opendemocracy.net Open Democracy] "is committed to human rights and democracy. We aim to ensure that marginalised views and voices are heard" uses CC BY NC as default but not all articles are CC By NC (and their link to the licences from the logo is broken)

[http://globalvoicesonline.org/ Global Voices] is a community of more than 200 bloggers around the world who work together to bring you translations and reports from blogs and citizen media everywhere, with emphasis on voices that are not ordinarily heard in international mainstream media. All content created by Global Voices is published under CC BY.

[http://hub.witness.org/en/node/43 The WITNESS Video Hub (the “Hub”)] is a service that allows anyone, anywhere to upload and view human rights related media and create or engage with communities and proposed calls to action around the abuses they witness.

[http://mobileactive.org/ MobileActive.org] connects people, organizations, and resources using mobile technology for social change.

[http://www.soros.org/about_site/terms The Open Society Institute] works to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens.

[http://www.hrw.org/en/permissions Human Rights Watch] is one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.

[http://architectureforhumanity.org Architecture for Humanity] a non-profit organisation which promotes social design, seeking architectural solutions to humanitarian crises. See also the CC [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Architecture_for_Humanity case study for AFH].

[http://www.breakthrough.tv/ Breakthrough] is an innovative, international human rights organization using the power of popular culture, media, and community mobilization to transform public attitudes and advance equality, justice, and dignity.

[http://www.idea.int/ International IDEA Publishing] is an intergovernmental organisation seeking to strengthen democratic processes and institutions worldwide. See the [[Case_Studies/International_IDEA_Publishing|case study]] for more info.

== Arab World ==
[http://www.smex.org Social] [http://walletputih.blogspot.com/ Media] [http://www.smex.org Exchange] (SMEX) is a Lebanese NGO that runs digital and social media training programs throughout the Arab region, empowering citizens to promote public participation in the governance of their societies. SMEX conducts CC workshops and publishes all course material in English and Arabic under a CC-BY-NC-SA license.

== Australia ==

[http://engagemedia.org/ EngageMedia] is an open video platform for presenting and disseminating social justice and environmental film in the Asia Pacific. See also the CC [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/EngageMedia_Study case study for EngageMedia].

[http://www.apc.org.au The Association of Progressive Communications Australia] (APC.au) is the Australian affiliate of The Association of Progressive Communications. Like APC, APC.au uses CC on their website.

[http://efa.org.au Electronic Frontiers Australia] (EFA) is a non-profit national organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line freedoms and rights. EFA uses a CC BY 2.5 Australia licence on their website.

== Brazil ==

[http://www.surjournal.org/eng/index.php Sur – International Journal on Human Rights] is a biannual journal published in English, Portuguese and Spanish by Sur – Human Rights University Network.
== Canada ==
[http://www.eyesteelfilm.com/ EyeSteel][http://www.ksaday.com Film] is a film production company concerned with projects that catalyze social change.

== Czech Republic ==
[http://www.bigbrotherawards.cz Big Brother Awards] is a Czech version of Big Brother Awards run by a non-govermental organization Iuridicum Remedium (also the Legal Lead of CC Czech Republic). All content is under BY-SA

== European Union ==

[http://www.openrightsgroup.org Open Rights Group] is a non-profit company funded by donors representing Internet users.

== Hong Kong ==

[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/InMediaHK InMediaHK] is the main citizen media website in Hong Kong, specialising in social issues, current affair commentaries and citizen reportage.

== Latin America and Caribbean ==

[http://logosundp.org/ Knowledge Management Unit] is part of the UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean and is the responsible facility for implementing UNDP knowledge management strategy in the region.

== New Zealand ==

[http://creativefreedom.org.nz/ Creative Freedom Foundation (artists' rights)] in New Zealand uses CC for their website here

== Poland ==
A watchdog organization called [http://indeks73.pl/en_,index.php "Indeks 73"] ("Index 73") uses CC BY SA for all its content. The organization deals with censorship issues, in particular artistic freedom, and to some extent deals therefore with free culture.

== South Africa ==

[http://www.sacsis.org.za The South African Civil Society Information Service], which is a nonprofit news agency promoting social justice in South Africa, uses CC By SA 2.5_Za

[http://www.oerafrica.org/ OER Africa] is a dynamic network of educators and learners in all levels of society that focus on developing, sharing, and customizing educational resources.

[http://www.tac.org.za/ The Treatment Action Campaign] works to increase equal access to HIV prevention and treatment services. With 16,000 members, TAC is a regional leader in South Africa, at the same time building a global campaign to bring awareness to HIV and AIDS issues.

== Taiwan ==
[http://www.coolloud.org.tw/ Cool Loud] a website for labor rights advocacy and news in Taiwan that uses CC licenses. It is operated by the Taiwan Association for Information about and Education for Labors, 台灣勞工資訊教育協會.

== United States==

[http://www.hhrjournal.org/index.php/hhr Health and Human Rights] is published by the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights within the Harvard School of Public Health.

[http://ccrjustice.org/ The Center for Constitutional Rights] is a nonprofit legal and educational organization that uses creative legal means to "[advance and protect] the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

[http://www.eff.org/ The Electronic Frontier Foundation] is a nonprofit that protects the public interest by defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights in the networked world.

[[Category:Lists of CC use by jurisdiction]]

Web Integration

2012-05-07T23:10:57Z

Tenanaon:

[[Category:Integration]]
[[Category:Documentation]]
[[Category:Guide]]
[[Category:Developer]]
{{Best Practice}}
__NOTOC__

<div style="font-size:125%; line-height:1.75em; margin-bottom:1.75em;">
This is a page describing ''everything'' a web-based (media) hosting site could do to integrate CC and CC-related features. From simple blogs to elaborate user-generated content communities, there are easy ways to share website content by publishing it under a Creative Commons license. Below we provide a basic overview of how you may integrate Creative Commons licensing into your website.
</div>

<div style="padding:1.25em 1em; margin-left:-1em; margin-right:-1em; -moz-border-radius:5px; -webkit-border-radius:5px; background-color: #eaeaea; overflow: auto;">
== Tools of the Trade ==
{{PageColumn|
== [[Web Integration/HowTo | HowTo Guide]] ==
While knowing about the various tools Creative Commons provides to integrate CC licenses in your web application, seeing examples of implementations is even better!

== [[LicenseChooser.js]] ==

LicenseChooser.js provides a lightweight method for integrating license selection into web applications. The widget is used by TypePad, as well as WpLicense.

== [[Partner Interface]] ==
This interface provides another method of integrating CC license choice in your web application using an <code>iframe</code> or HTML popup.

}}

{{PageColumn|
== [[Web Services | Web Services (API)]] ==
The web services are designed to be a more flexible option for building a custom, fully integrated solution.

== ThirdParty Tools ==
* [[Acts As Licensed]] is a Ruby on Rails plugin that allows for integrating of CC license choice in your Rails web application as a server application building tool.
}}

<br clear="all"/>

== Underlying Technology ==

{{PageColumn|
=== [[RDFa]] ===

RDFa is a way of expressing RDF in XHTML. Creative Commons uses RDFa to express license and other information about works for the semantic web.
}}

{{PageColumn|
=== [[CcREL]] ===
A specification describing how license information may be described and attached to works.
}}

<br clear="all"/>

== [[Developer Challenges]] Related to Web Integration ==
{{#ask:
[[Category:Challenge]] [[Has Challenge Type::Developer]] [[Is Complete::false]] [[Has Tag::web]]
| ?Related To
| ?Has Tag
}}

</div>

Web Integration

2012-05-07T23:09:50Z

Tenanaon:

[[Category:Integration]]
[[Category:Documentation]]
[[Category:Guide]]
[[Category:Developer]]
{{Best Practice}}
__NOTOC__

<div style="font-size:125%; line-height:1.75em; margin-bottom:1.75em;">
This is a page describing ''everything'' a web-based (media) hosting site could do to integrate CC and CC-related features. From simple blogs to elaborate user-generated content communities, there are easy ways to share website content by publishing it under a Creative Commons license. Below we provide a basic overview of how you may integrate Creative Commons licensing into your website.
</div>

<div style="padding:1.25em 1em; margin-left:-1em; margin-right:-1em; -moz-border-radius:5px; -webkit-border-radius:5px; background-color: #eaeaea; overflow: auto;">
== Tools of the Trade ==
{{PageColumn|
== [[Web Integration/HowTo | HowTo Guide]] ==
While knowing about the various tools Creative Commons provides to integrate CC licenses in your web application, seeing examples of implementations is even better!

== [[LicenseChooser.js]] ==

LicenseChooser.js provides a lightweight method for integrating license selection into web applications. The widget is used by TypePad, as well as WpLicense.

== [[Partner Interface]] ==
This interface provides another method of integrating CC license choice in your web application using an <code>iframe</code> or HTML popup.

}}

{{PageColumn|
== [[Web Services | Web Services (API)]] ==
The web services are designed to be a more flexible option for building a custom, fully integrated solution.

== ThirdParty Tools ==
* [[Acts]][http://walletputih.blogspot.com/ As][[Licensed]] is a Ruby on Rails plugin that allows for integrating of CC license choice in your Rails web application as a server application building tool.
}}

<br clear="all"/>

== Underlying Technology ==

{{PageColumn|
=== [[RDFa]] ===

RDFa is a way of expressing RDF in XHTML. Creative Commons uses RDFa to express license and other information about works for the semantic web.
}}

{{PageColumn|
=== [[CcREL]] ===
A specification describing how license information may be described and attached to works.
}}

<br clear="all"/>

== [[Developer Challenges]] Related to Web Integration ==
{{#ask:
[[Category:Challenge]] [[Has Challenge Type::Developer]] [[Is Complete::false]] [[Has Tag::web]]
| ?Related To
| ?Has Tag
}}

</div>

Web Integration

2012-05-07T23:09:18Z

Tenanaon:

[[Category:Integration]]
[[Category:Documentation]]
[[Category:Guide]]
[[Category:Developer]]
{{Best Practice}}
__NOTOC__

<div style="font-size:125%; line-height:1.75em; margin-bottom:1.75em;">
This is a page describing ''everything'' a web-based (media) hosting site could do to integrate CC and CC-related features. From simple blogs to elaborate user-generated content communities, there are easy ways to share website content by publishing it under a Creative Commons license. Below we provide a basic overview of how you may integrate Creative Commons licensing into your website.
</div>

<div style="padding:1.25em 1em; margin-left:-1em; margin-right:-1em; -moz-border-radius:5px; -webkit-border-radius:5px; background-color: #eaeaea; overflow: auto;">
== Tools of the Trade ==
{{PageColumn|
== [[Web Integration/HowTo | HowTo Guide]] ==
While knowing about the various tools Creative Commons provides to integrate CC licenses in your web application, seeing examples of implementations is even better!

== [[LicenseChooser.js]] ==

LicenseChooser.js provides a lightweight method for integrating license selection into web applications. The widget is used by TypePad, as well as WpLicense.

== [[Partner Interface]] ==
This interface provides another method of integrating CC license choice in your web application using an <code>iframe</code> or HTML popup.

}}

{{PageColumn|
== [[Web Services | Web Services (API)]] ==
The web services are designed to be a more flexible option for building a custom, fully integrated solution.

== ThirdParty Tools ==
* [[Acts[http://walletputih.blogspot.com/ As]Licensed]] is a Ruby on Rails plugin that allows for integrating of CC license choice in your Rails web application as a server application building tool.
}}

<br clear="all"/>

== Underlying Technology ==

{{PageColumn|
=== [[RDFa]] ===

RDFa is a way of expressing RDF in XHTML. Creative Commons uses RDFa to express license and other information about works for the semantic web.
}}

{{PageColumn|
=== [[CcREL]] ===
A specification describing how license information may be described and attached to works.
}}

<br clear="all"/>

== [[Developer Challenges]] Related to Web Integration ==
{{#ask:
[[Category:Challenge]] [[Has Challenge Type::Developer]] [[Is Complete::false]] [[Has Tag::web]]
| ?Related To
| ?Has Tag
}}

</div>