Comments on: from the “what a fantastic idea” department http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: sjdtyfoph http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-27465 Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:33:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-27465 WxwQhh , [url=http://iqbgxpcprvon.com/]iqbgxpcprvon[/url], [link=http://mmeenkdialjl.com/]mmeenkdialjl[/link], http://zmqzwsfwehdl.com/

]]>
By: pdkcozok http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-27449 Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:17:26 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-27449 T0XNPq vdvezmfwynwx

]]>
By: Luke http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-27379 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 02:33:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-27379 Wowza, prbolem solved like it never happened.

]]>
By: Greg M. Johnson http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3352 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:31:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3352 No, you’ve got it wrong. All content on Youtube, whom you’re griping about, is under a de-facto cc-by license. (IANAL). Flickr, whom you praise, has retreated from its original fair use model to one where it allows anyone to gripe about the use of the “Blog This!” button on every photo. On flickr, posting to a “blog with ads” is unauthorized commercial exploitation. On youtube, you’re supposed to blog the material.

Why don’t you write about this. (Or study the actual cultural landscape a bit more).

]]>
By: Chris Messina http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3351 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:09:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3351 Thanks for reposting my entry, Larry.

Some of the comment responses have been interesting — especially Mary’s, which suggests that work on YouTube is already licensed under a fairly permissive license.

I took a harder look at YouTube and the only hint about licensing is in the footer, where there’s a copyright notice that reads “© 2008 YouTube, LLC”. I presume this applies to the design of the site and not the content, but it’s a slim distinction since again, there is no explicit mention about the license of the individual works, whether under the “YouTube License” or some other scheme.

To my point, the reason why I think it would be useful for YouTube to embrace the CC licensing scheme is because of the signal it would send to people — hopefully to help them think more critically about licensing and reuse permissions, and to be more aware of alternative permissive-licensing options.

It is true that government works *performed by the government* (again, contractor work is harder to generalize about) are in the public domain, but as Carl pointed out, the noncopyright disclaimer acts as a chilling effect, making people worry about whether they can or cannot use something, and then, likely, will choose not to out of fear.

If the Obama administration took a progressive stance on demarking works as in the public domain, I think that would be a great service to the burgeoning remix culture. If it went further and requested that YouTube make it plain what the license of its videos were, I think that would also serve the interests of the CC community.

It’s hard to say whether YouTube will seize the opportunity this time, but indeed I hope they do.

]]>
By: Erubey http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3350 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:03:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3350 I’m a big fan of all your work but I still haven’t decided if I’m an “abolitionist” or a “reformer.” I just read this blog and decided to take matters into my own hands (At least with my own work). I’m an amateur singer-songwriter (amateur in both senses of the word, I’m not very good, and I do it for the love. There genre is Mexican-folk music with progressive liberal lyrics). I post original work on youtube and also some remix work. As you know, Youtube has added the “annotations” functionality. I used that space to write “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share” on some of my videos. I wanted to add the cool CC logo but I couldnt paste and copy the logo into it.

I just graduated from UCLAW, but obviously you’re the legal expert here, my question is: Is that enough? TED videos also have the CC logo in the beginning. As long as President Elect Obama writes “CC” or “public domain” (either like TED does it or using the annotations functions like me) on the weekly addresses, wouldn’t that be enough?

The link to what I did is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZLTJZ5VGc. I wanted to add the cool CC logo but I wouldnt past and copy the logo into it.

]]>
By: Erubey http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3349 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:00:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3349 I’m a big fan of all your work but I still haven’t decided if I’m an “abolitionist” or a “reformer.” I just read this blog and decided to take matters into my own hands (At least with my own work). I’m an amateur singer-songwriter (amateur in both senses of the word, I’m not very good, and I do it for the love. There genre is Mexican-folk music with progressive liberal lyrics). I post original work on youtube and also some remix work. As you know, Youtube has added the “annotations” functionality. I used that space to write “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share” on some of my videos. I wanted to add the cool CC logo but I couldnt paste and copy the logo into it.

I just graduated from UCLAW, but obviously you’re the legal expert here, my question is: Is that enough? TED videos also have the CC logo in the beginning. As long as President Elect Obama writes “CC” or “public domain” (either like TED does it or using the annotations functions like me) on the weekly addresses, wouldn’t that be enough?

The link to what I did is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZLTJZ5VGc. I wanted to add the cool CC logo but I wouldnt past and copy the logo into it.

]]>
By: Dan Gillmor http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3348 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:02:16 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3348 With regard to Obama’s weekly messages, won’t this be moot when he takes the oath of office? Isn’t anything created by the federal government free of copyright in any case?

Even if so that doesn’t address the bigger issue — YouTube’s refusal to even make CC an option. I’ve also had conversations about this with people there and gotten the same “we’ll take that under consideration” non-answers. It’s one reason why I advise people to use services like Blip.

Too bad Obama’s folks don’t do the obvious thing and post that weekly chat to other services — including the ones that support CC.

]]>
By: George http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3347 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:11:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3347 Frankly, who gives a sh*t about Utube? Is that platform God or what? There’s absolutely no lock-in – you can upload your video wherever you want and people can view your video wherever they want, they simply need to click on a URL.

Hence, just use another platform that offers the features you like, be it better quality than the sh*tty Utube quality or be it CC rights by default.

Done, problem solved. Next!

]]>
By: Mary Hodder http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3346 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:56:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3346 Since I’ve been tracking Youtube’s TOUs (May 2005) they have always had this paragraph in their user submission area (currently Section 6).

The May 2007 license said this:
However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successor’s) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.

But the current section 6, part C says this:
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.
……….

It’s an interesting thing, as it is a commercial reuse license, in my interpretation, given to Youtube and the greater community, as long as the submitter of the work owns the copyright to the work. The earlier license allowed for remixing by other users, however, but the newer license is less liberal in that direction.

YT does not allow users to submit more granular control over this licensing as CC licenses would, but from a reuse standpoint, its the most liberal thing out there that I know of on an upload site such as YT.

In March 2006 I talked with Steve Chen and their head of marketing at the time about their commercial reuse license and asked why they didn’t consider using Creative Commons. They both didn’t seem very open to the idea. However, time has passed, and they might be willing to reconsider.

mary

]]>
By: Jardinero1 http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3345 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:08:26 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3345 Sandip,

No, this problem is unique to CC and opt-in regimes only. Under US Copyright law, the default regime, whatever I create is mine, subject to fair use. CC is entirely optional and, as far as I know, there is no audit mechanism for the assignment of a CC license. Anyone can paste a CC license on my work and fraudulently give it a looser copyright. No one can fraudulently assign my work the normal copyright protection afforded under US law; it’s automatically there for me.

You say, “The only CC-specific point to remember is that you cannot revoke a license retroactively.” That’s ok for honest people but I am talking about fraud. If I decide to take back my CC license, all I have to say it that some vandal stole my work and assigned a CC license to it fraudulently. If this hasn’t happened yet, I believe it will.

This is a big gap that has to be filled.

]]>
By: Carl Malamud http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3344 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:34 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3344 Allow me to go on a slight tangent on a pet peeve of mine. Speaking of the GAO disclaimer:

> Though it can’t simply put this work into the public domain
> because of the potential copyrighted materials embedded
> therein, this statement is about as close as you can get for
> an assembled work produced by the government.

I flipped through the report in question and saw no indication of copyright material contained therein. But, the disclaimer reads “however, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.” I find that really muddies the waters. Government should simply leave that disclaimer off by default and only put it back on when there is something to protect, and should then be specific.

An affirmation of public domain status by the government is much stronger than requiring each end user to make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Not having those affirmations has been one of the things holding down scanning and digitization of government information because librarians (such as Google or the Internet Archive) have to take the responsibility for determining what is and isn’t a true work of government.

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3343 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:01:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3343 Regarding:

1) “why doesn’t YouTube let you pick a license for the work that you upload”

While an interesting question, I suspect the answer to that is in the copyright thinking of the YouTube lawyers, and that they won’t be willing to discuss it. At least not frankly.

2) “what license should Barack Obama use for his content?”

Why is this even a question? Doesn’t copyright law say all his government-related actions, such as his official speeches, are in the public domain?

]]>
By: Sandip Bhattacharya http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3342 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:34:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3342 > First of all, all sites that enable the use of CC licenses offer the scheme as opt-in,
> defaulting to the traditional all rights reserved use of copyright. Enabling the choice
> of Creative Commons wouldn’t necessarily affect this default.

… and all sites which do *not* enable CC licensing (like youtube), require that you own the copyright of whatever you are publishing. So if it is not the publisher’s own content in the first place, it doesn’t matter which licence is there anyway. It is mislicenced whatever way you look at it.

> What happens when a prankster or vandal takes something not CC
> licensed and then republishes it fraudulently with a CC license? Or
> conversely, what if I do publish my own work with a CC license
> but then get cold feet and I say that some vandal did that, not me,
> demand the full protection of US Copyright law and then start issuing
> takedown notices? This strikes me as a huge problem with the CC regime.

Replace “CC” with any other licence in your scenario there, and the problem is still the same. This is not a CC specific issue.

The only CC-specific point to remember is that you cannot revoke a licence retroactively. If you change your licence, you cannot make people using your previously licenced content to follow the new rules.

]]>
By: Jardinero1 http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/from-the-what-a-fantastic-idea/#comment-3341 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:27:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/from_the_what_a_fantastic_idea.html#comment-3341 Do help me with this vexing question about Creative Commons. How does CC handle the issue of fraud?

What happens when a prankster or vandal takes something not CC licensed and then republishes it fraudulently with a CC license? Or conversely, what if I do publish my own work with a CC license but then get cold feet and I say that some vandal did that, not me, demand the full protection of US Copyright law and then start issuing takedown notices? This strikes me as a huge problem with the CC regime.

]]>