"Attribution - An Attribution license means creative works can be copied, distributed, displayed, or performed and derivative works can be created, provided that appropriate credit to the original copyright holder is given." Now when someone reads that, they think hey I can take what someone else has done, hand it out, change it a little or a lot depending on what it is but it's okay because it's still their piece of work. HUH?? It's no wonder people are constantly quarreling over lyrics to a song. Like I said it's a good thing I am not in that profession.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Creative Commons? Is Anyone Else Confused??
I am reading the article about creative commons, and I guess it's a good thing I'm not an artist. You would need a whole legal team to understand what they are talking about. Not getting sued was never so complicated. The article gives the types of Creative Common License options out there, and it tries to put them in words that anyone can understand which is helpful, but I am still confused. Take this one for example
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also agree I am very confused about Creative Commons. And the only info I found on it was on wikipedia. Then I came to find out wikipedia used a license from Creative Commons. I also learned that there have been some cases concerning these licenses and what not. It may help you to read form that site too. I ran all around the site given to use and was very confused wikipedia but a few pieces of the puzzle together for me though.
ReplyDelete~Elizabeth
I agree that the legal language is difficult. It brings up one point, which is that people who, for example download music, only a small minority of them take the time to read through licensing agreements whether it is something legal like iTunes or something illegal (I think?) like Limewire. It would be difficult to blame them for failing to read the fine print.
ReplyDeleteJohn Y.