What's the real issue here? There are always possibilities that
people will make money from your work. But if it's primarily
scholarship/research, and you are primarily interested in getting
exposure rather than money, then a CC licence is sensible. We use CC-
BY-NC-SA ourselves (attribution, which is not quite the same as
citation, non-commercial, but we'd do a separate commercial licence
if you wanted, and share-alike to make sure the licence gets passed
on in any re-use; we would allow derivative works, but assume that
they would have to carry our licence, which might restrict them too
much). There are arguments that this is too restrictive, that it
prohibits some kinds of sensible re-use, and that we should simply
consider CC-BY.
Perhaps the Arts link means that some of these products may have a
separate commercial value, eg as Creative Works in a less technical,
more cultural sense. If that were the case, you can still make them
available in a repository, but it might make sense to have a
different more restrictive licence. I'm copying this to Mags McGeever
for comment, although there are plenty of other experts on this list
who may well jump in....
--
Chris Rusbridge
Director, Digital Curation Centre
Email: [log in to unmask] Phone 0131 6513823
University of Edinburgh
Appleton Tower, Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE
5th International Digital Curation Conference: "Moving to Multi-Scale
Science," London, 2-4 December
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
On 17 Aug 2009, at 10:09, Andrew Gray wrote:
> ***sorry for cross posting****
>
> Dear List,
>
> CC licenses again! We are always so near to launching our own
> institutional repository and one of the goals from our project was
> to promote the use of CC licenses within the arts community, we
> would have been using : Attribution – Non-Commercial – No
> Derivatives (BY-NC-ND) . Our legal team have come across some
> issues that have made them nervous. The prime one being that
> material can be collected together in ‘anthologies and
> encyclopaedias’ and that ‘content which is licensed can apparently
> even be sold on, as long as this is not done "primarily" for
> commercial advantage or private monetary compensation’. I am trying
> to think of examples of this being done and from there hopefully
> assure our legal team and our researchers that it is not a big
> worry and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> Have other institutions been using CC licenses? If so how have you
> tackled such worries?
>
> andrew
>
>
> Andrew Gray
> Kultur Project Officer UAL
> Kubrick Archive
> London College of Communication
> Elephant and Castle
> London SE1 6SB
> 020 7 514 9334
> http://kultur.eprints.org/
>
|