I agree with Scott. I do not understand where the idea that CC is only
applicable for "individual - individual" contracts comes from? Where in
the CC licence does it says this? The licences explicitly use language
such as
"Licensor" means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the
terms of this License."
Note the use of 'individual or entity' rather than just 'individual'.
Ditto, the comment about CC being appropriate for materials in the "public
domain". As far as I can tell, CC is explicitly *not* for materials in
the public domain. At the point of choosing a CC licence, you explicitly
have to choose between a CC or a public domain licence.
As far as I recall, the major difference between the JORUM licence and CC
licences is that it has to be explicitly signed (i.e. signed on paper by
an institution) and that it restricts usage to 'educational' use (from
memory - I might have got this wrong).
The signing bit means that the JORUM licence simply will not work in the
Web-centric way in which the CC licences work (where licences are accepted
implicitly without an actual signature being provided) :-(
Andy.
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Scott Wilson wrote:
> Hi Kenny,
>
> A few personal observations on the JORUM approach inline below:
>
> On 27 May 2005, at 00:25, Kenny Baird wrote:
>
>> Dear All.
>>
>> An interesting development from Yahoo!. Just to summarise JORUM's approach
>> to Creative Commons licences, we cannot use them for the following reasons:
>>
>> * Where materials are owned by institutions - and the majority of the
>> material in JORUM will be owned by institutions - CC is not appropriate
>> because it is based on an individual - individual contract.
>
> So we are making the assumption that anything that a member of an academic
> institution creates is the copyright of the institution, not the creator? Are
> there guidelines or precedent here?
>
> it seems contrary to this quote (emphasis mine):
>
> "Creative Commons applauds efforts by universities to make scientific and
> scholarly research more widely available by adopting policies that encourage
> faculty to retain some publication rights and to exercise those rights to
> post their research in open digital repositories. Creative Commons offers a
> range of public licenses that facilitate the free exchange of information
> over the Internet while leaving some control in the hands of authors and
> their publishers. Some publishers, such as the Public Library of Science and
> BioMedCentral, require authors to adopt a Creative Commons license so as to
> ensure maximum public access to cutting-edge scientific research. Other
> Creative Commons licenses may be better suited to authors who retain only
> partial rights to their work. Through its Science Commons division,Creative
> Commons also is developing technological tools that make it easy to deposit
> research articles into digital repositories." -
> http://science.creativecommons.org/literature/ccoastatement
>
>> * There is no provision in CC for database rights which need to be clearly
>> stated for JORUM as a collection of community-owned resources.
>
> That seems dubious. Flickr manages it. Besides, I thought the submitter still
> held copyright on the resource, not JORUM. "Database rights" sounds to me
> like access policy, not usage rights, and should be part of the access
> control system, not the license. CC doesn't do the job of XACML, and your
> license shouldn't either.
>
>> * CC has been created for materials held in the public domain rather than
>> in
>> repositories with restricted access like JORUM.
>
> I completely disagree. Usage rights are completely orthogonal to the access
> management mechanism in place, if any. See also above re: BioMedCentral.
>
>> *Our JORUM licence is based on English law, as agreed with all the funding
>> councils. CC has Scottish as well as English versions, so there is the
>> potential for confusion when working across the UK.
>
> That doesn't sound like a justification for a new license. You don't reduce
> the confusion of having two sets of legal wordings of one license, by adding
> a second completely new license with its own legal wording!
>
>>
>> * The CC-UK organisation itself does not recommend that CC licences are
>> used for materials held in repositories and plan to point to the JORUM
>> licence, which is a contract licence, and other emerging licences, as
>> alternatives.
>
> *sigh* more complexity for the user, and more silos with different licenses.
> Where exactly is the user benefit here? We're just getting to the stage of
> people understanding CC, and we go and create a special
> just-for-things-in-educational-repositories-in-the-UK-only license.
>
>>
>> * Recent debate on the CC-UK mailing list has suggested that, where
>> materials are genuinely owned by academic staff and repositories are to be
>> used, recommended practice could be for academics to license their
>> materials
>> to their institutions to manage on their behalf. This would mean that
>> individually-owned materials could be deposited in JORUM, using the current
>> JORUM licence, by the institution on the individual academic's behalf.
>> JISC
>> is prepared to provide a licence template enabling individuals to license
>> their materials to their institutions.
>
> Grief. Do I have to go through this rigmarole with my institution every time
> I blog something or upload a powerpoint presentation somewhere? Isn't it
> easier just to copy-and-paste a CC license as-is? I think I'd rather license
> my own stuff directly using CC than give all rights to my work to my
> institution.
>
> To be honest, I think we'd be better off if institutions licensed the
> copyright on works to their creators, on the proviso they attach a CC
> license, than the reverse.
>
>>
>> All the best
>> Kenny
>>
>> Kenny Baird
>> Metadata and Technical Support Officer
>> EDINA
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This message was written in a character set other than your own. If it is
>> not
>>> displayed correctly, click here to open it in a new window.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Heath said "Well copyright and trademark notices may not be
>> interesting
>>> ... unless you're a lawyer of course Tom."
>>>
>>> But have you tried this?
>>> http://search.yahoo.com/cc
>>>
>>> It's a beta search engine that checks for particular types of creative
>>> commons licences. I can "Find content I can use for commercial purposes"
>> OR
>>> "Find content I can modify, adapt, or build upon". I can imagine this
>>> building and building, especially if JORUM used CC licences
>>>
>>> Simon Grant said " ... there is no point in trying to standardise the
>>> attributes that are recorded about something;
>>> one may as well (or better) use generic search tools (Google etc. etc.)
>> that
>>> operate in ever more subtle ways.
>>>
>>> Is this a subtler way? Legal metadata thats highly searchable. The
>> publisher
>>> gets to express their rights and the searcher gets to make use of them.
>>>
>>> Interesting ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Amber Thomas
>>> Project Leader
>>> JISC DEL: Promoting Use of Shared Content in the West Midlands
>>> Bredon 76
>>> University College Worcester
>>> Henwick Grove
>>> Worcester
>>> WR2 6AJ
>>>
>>> email: [log in to unmask]
>>> mobile: 07913 842421
>>> http://www2.worc.ac.uk/wm-share/
>>>
>>
>
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|
