blob: cdc962025893aee1045acdb6652eddc0f3e35592 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
|
The Creative Commons has [released][1] version 3.0 of its licensing schemes. The [new version][4] includes several changes that make the licenses better for international users and those who want derivative works to be compatibly licensed.
The "generic" license offered by Creative Commons now comes in two flavors, one, the CC US license and two a slightly modified version known as the "unported" license, which will work better for international users.
Other changes affecting international users include changes to the way CC licenses handle royalty collection agencies. The Creative Commons site explains:
>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.
Essentially this meant that artists who were members of some royalty collection agencies could not use Creative Commons licenses in conjunction with a traditional all rights reserved license. The best example of this is the Non-Commercial clause in which non-commercial entities are free to use a work however they please, but commercial uses of the same work would be eligible for royalty collection.
Version 3.0 solves this clash of interests by allowing the licensor to waive the compulsory collection where possible and "reserve the right to collect these royalties in those jurisdictions in which this cannot be waived."
The other big change in version 3.0 involves a disambiguation of the language surrounding attributions so that attribution does not imply endorsement or even knowledge of the new work by the original artist. That there was no association or relationship between the licensor and new works was always implied, but in the interests of further clarification, the lack of relationship is now spelled out in both the legal code and the Commons Deed.
Other changes include steps toward better compatibility with other "open" licenses. Many have long said that adding the "ShareAlike" (SA) component to your CC license was as restrictive as copyright since it forces the derivative work to use the same license. In many cases the artist may not wish to force CC licenses on derivatives. Version 3.0 of the CC licenses allows SA licensed works to be relicensed under a "Creative Commons Compatible License."
Of particular concern is the clash between licenses like the [GNU Free Documentation License][3] which governs Wikipedia and CC making a mashup of say, Wikipedia, with CC content from Flickr impossible. The new plan aims to fix that problem.
So far no approved license are [listed on the site][2], but the page promises that more compatible license information is on the way.
[1]: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249 "Creative Commons: Version 3.0 Launched"
[2]: http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses "Compatible Licenses"
[3]: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html "GNU Free Documentation License"
[4]: http://creativecommons.org/license/ "License your work"
|
