Talk:Creative Commons

message: This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mohanavamsi iska.
:https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Formatierer#c-Formatierer-20230405141500-Peter_Gr%C3%B6bner-20230405133200 2A02:2455:1818:8B00:F4F0:D066:50A2:7179 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: I expanded the criticism section and added some counter-criticism comments to help balance it and make it more neutral, but I wasn't sure how to integrate the criticism into the very few other sections of the page, as Wikipedia suggests. Not all of the criticism sections will fit in the other remaining sections, so I wasn't sure where to move them. Does anyone have any suggestions?Jm94904 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010
just uploaded a rewrite/revision of the criticism section of this page. still working on it. i dissolved the discussion of incorrect licensing into the criticism section.Karlyndesteno (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Can anyone tell me if Common Creativity have expiry date. If it have, how is the time period is calculated? Would the period differ from one country to another? Does spesific state have to rectified this copyright rules or it is already cover under Berne Convention. Yosri (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no expiry date/term limits on CC licenses. --Joi (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only time it would expire, is per the normal lengths for terms per local law. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Creativity Expiry Date 

message: I recommend a 'Practical User's Guide to publishing under Creative Commons' which covers this and other high probability uses by folk who want to share their mind work with the world.
<BR> Perhaps something like the following:<BR>
To freely share a poem with the world
: "I am rotund, and so are you.  As Americans overweight, we'll eat 'till were blue." by "Wikidity" under Creative Commons Open (CC-NC) License
1) Review the guidelines at 'Considerations for licensors'.  CC Australia has developed a flow chart or PDF.
<BR>2) Think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons license.  It cannot be revoked.
<BR>3) Post the above someplace public on the web, that is where it does not require a proprietary account to read it.  
<BR>4) Sit back and basque in your growing glory as you watch the world flock to your wisdom in profound adulation and emulation, and copy it to their own email signatures, billboards, doorsteps, and T-shirts. 
: If these few steps are not quite correct, correct them or wait until someone else tries to do so, or perhaps you can find and link to an existing description.
 --Wikidity (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Common procedure 

message: It really needs a total rewrite.  At present, it's really just a jumble of lists, bullet points, etc.
PainMan (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every things in our universe are like that are all complicated, all unclear, and all unorganized, aren't they? JSK (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: Especially the extensive external links mostly of poor quality need to be cleaned up.--Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I have created an article for the tools section (linked from this article), so this article can focus on the organisation itself.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools Section 

message: ===News===
*Google Finally Adds Creative Commons To Image Search - Washington Post, Explains increasing popularity
*O’Reilly Foundation Donates to CC, News of a donation
===Web sites===
*White House copyright policy, How governments can use this
*Main site, The main site
*CCi, CCi's site
===PDFs===
*International Commons at the Digital Age, Describes CCi and CC now  and 
*METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC., ET AL. v. GROKSTER, LTD., ET AL. More legal stuff
===Books===
*Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig, Description
*Podcast Solutions, Michael Geoghegan, Dan Klass, Uses
*Understanding open source & free software licensing, Andrew M. St. Laurent, License information
*Intellectual Property and Information Wealth, Peter K. Yu, Legal stuff
*Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution, Matthew Rimmer, More info
*Intellectual property rights and communications in Asia, Pradip Thomas, Jan Servaes, More info
*The future of the music business, Steve Gordon, Practicality
*Public domain, Stephen Fishman, PD and CC; more info
--The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: *Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig, Description
*Podcast Solutions, Michael Geoghegan, Dan Klass, Uses
*Understanding open source & free software licensing, Andrew M. St. Laurent, License information
*Intellectual Property and Information Wealth, Peter K. Yu, Legal stuff
*Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution, Matthew Rimmer, More info
*Intellectual property rights and communications in Asia, Pradip Thomas, Jan Servaes, More info
*The future of the music business, Steve Gordon, Practicality
*Public domain, Stephen Fishman, PD and CC; more info
--The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: Part of the "license changes" section seems to be duplicated verbatim, appearing twice in the article. I'll leave it to the person who made the goof to fix it. --Keith111 (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate "license changes" sections 

message: This article could really do with a "History of Creative Commons" section. I came here just now hoping to find out when the 2.0 licences appeared, yet the date doesn't seem to be anywhere. That sort of thing. (I don't know, so can't write it myself.) Loganberry (Talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some hints at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions and http://creativecommons.org/about/history Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Bissell no longer works at CC, the ccLearn "brand" is retired, and Catherine Casserly has joined the board of directors, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/20329 (I work at CC, so won't edit the article directly). --Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another update required, Annette Thomas added to the board. If nobody updates the governance section this week I'll go ahead and do it. --Mike Linksvayer (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I never did this, nor did anyone else. There's another update now outstanding, so I'm going to go ahead and bring up to date. --Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Governance section needs an update. Here I'm adding following new people who have joined the organization: 
•	Gwen Franck
•	Alex Gakuru
•	Eva Rogers
•	Claudio Ruiz
•	Tobias Schonwetter
•	Naeema Zarif
•	Rebecca Lendl
•	SooHyun Pae
And  Chris Sprigman is no longer board member https://creativecommons.org/about/team/ . --Asmat (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  #Governance updates 

message: Is it possible for the Creative Commons Corporation to revise or amend its licenses in the same way that credit card companies are able to revise cardholder agreements? That is, could it ever change its license to, for instance, prohibit any use of works already licensed under the Creative Commons license without paying a royalty to the Creative Commons Corp.? Or is there some safeguard against that? I notice that the GFDL says "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time.  Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.". I wonder who determines what is "similar in spirit" in the event of a dispute? Tisane (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If a CC license is revised, this is indicated by a new version/revision number. Therefore the terms of a license described as CC-BY-SA-2.5 shall always remain the same. SV1XV (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

text: @Tisane ("flaviorosel860729") (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Creative Commons licenses 

message: Does Creative Commons really have anything to do with activities described in {Intellectual property activism} template? IMHO not (my understanding is that Creative Commons operates within existing framework and does not call for any reform in this field), and I'm strongly tempted to remove this template from Creative Commons page. Ipsign (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclaimer: I presently work for Creative Commons, so take with a gigantic grain of salt. Yes, CC has lots to do with many of the activities in the {Intellectual property activism} template. At least half of them -- happy to explain further if desired. Voluntary methods are reform -- direct action, rather than asking. Furthermore, CC is very involved in asking for policy change, just not via lobbying lawmakers or encouraging action on specific legislation (which the organization has very limited scope to do even if it wanted to, due to its tax status and grant contracts) -- at various levels of government, institutions, funders, and businesses/communities/platforms -- largely in the form of making various CC tools part of policy, which is a very significant reform. CC also occasionally contributes to pertinent amicus briefs. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying it, I certainly won't argue about CC position with somebody from CC (at least not until somebody else from CC disagrees :-) ). OTOH, now (after your comment and some thought) I know what I didn't like about that template - IMHO it is too much of WP:SYN (it introduces new term "Intellectual property reform" - which I didn't find elsewhere in Wikipedia), and it borderlines violating WP:SOAP. Therefore, while I won't object including (attributed) position of CC on reform into CC article, I might try arguing to abolish this whole {Intellectual property activism} template completely. Ipsign (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: On related subject: I think it would be beneficial if you could take a look at Anti-copyright - I've made a severe cleanup of that page recently, and would like to confirm that description of CC position on anti-copyright is accurate. Ipsign (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a comment on Template_talk:Intellectual_property_activism about above. Looked at Anti-copyright and made a small edit. Some of the language concerning CC is not great, but I see it is sourced from the CC FAQ, portions of which are badly in need of update. Thanks! Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and if/when you see CC FAQ changed - it would be great if you could update relevant pages :-) Ipsign (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual property reform activism? 

message: Can anyone clarify if commercial use is allowed and if so to what extent under this license? I've read through it, but there doesn't appear to be any clear definitions on if anyone can use the work for commercial purposes under this license. My understanding was that you can share the images non-commercially, but any commercial usage, such as reselling the image, would require a permission from the licensee.
The reason I ask is that I have uploaded a number of images and when I see the images appearing on other websites, I am fine with that as it is non-commercial. 
However, I recently discovered that a printing firm in the UK is selling the printed and framed version of this image on ebay in various sizes. The image is of a Marine Flatworm which I uploaded in 2008. I emailed them and they just referred me to this license. I guess when I uploaded the image in 2008, I had only looked at the GNU license which allows some commercial distribution in a limited way. But CC does not seem to have such restrictions.
Would appreciate some advice. What rights do I have under this license to protect the commercial value of my work? Jnpet (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: replied on your talkpage to avoid clutter Ajbpearce (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Use 

message: There doesn't seem to be a section on the page for the symbol. Here are a few attempts to reproduce it in unicode, with varying success:
 ͨͨ⃝
cͨ⃝
သ⃝
ㄸ⃝
I like the last one (hangul-based) the best. The second-to-last would be perfect if it weren't backwards.
19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: The legal section has some pointed POV problems (in that only the CC-Music entry seems to rest on a question concerning CC licenses at all) and the sourcing is very shoddy at best.
The legal issues here hinged on copyright law, publicity rights and other topics that did not make the CC license at all relevant for the lawsuit or decision. The most ludicrous part is where the article is claiming the court ruled that the CC license was valid even though someone hadn't assented to it, when the person saying that wa a CC spokesperson with an obvious agenda to push. Validity of the license wasn't even an issue as all enforcement fell under normal copyright rules. If the license hadn't been there normal copyright rules would have applied, so the decision in no way proves the license was treated as valid.
In order for this section to exist as a neutral encyclopedia-style coverage, we need outside, notable, reliable experts making statements that we source to them. Right now the section is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and other policies. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is not about trying to prove or disprove anything, and when/if a part of this article does that, it should be rewritten in a neutral tone. To this goal, I rewrote a few bit about the first section and changed the subsections title. In regard to CC spokesperson and his comment, so long the statement included who said it, with any additional context that the person is a author to the CC license in that region, and if the statement was made in a reliable source, then its a viable quote to include. I rewrote the attribution to make it a bit more clear that the person worked on the CC license, and added a couple more sources like a published book(Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My IPod, Matthew Rimmer (26 Jul 2007)) and a news article (cnet). As for the other two cases, CC-Music was renamed and rewritten, and GateHouse Media was slighly changed to include how the CC licensed work was included in the court case. Of the three cases, only the first one has any decent sources. Belorn (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal section 

message: Looks like he played a major role at the beginning of CC, and it would be just right to add this detail to the article. --Elitre (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the NYC memorial, archived ay livestream, former CC CEO Glenn Otis Brown stated that Swarz undertook the conversion of the licences into machine-readable format. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aaron Swartz]]

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons&diff=606033723&oldid=605473476
Any thoughts?  I'm inclined to revert these recent removals, because taking out all overview of the licences themselves makes this article effectively unreadable to someone new to CC. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As "someone new to CC," I appreciate @Andy's concern. Thinking of the overall WP:Notability guideline and particularly WP:NONPROFIT, I agree that an overview of CC licensing is central to this article. And applying the WP:MOSINTRO style guideline, I think it's reasonable to expect at least some expansion on CC licensing in the article because of its prominence in the lead section. Since the Creative_Commons_license article already explores the types of CC licenses and their application, I can also see the need to be more concise about those aspects in this article. Again as a newbie, I would expect from the lead section to find in the body of the article, for examples: (1) something more on "Creative Commons licenses do not replace copyright, but are based upon it", (2) something more on the CC term "some rights reserved", and (3) a sense of where or whether CC is "expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share". —Litjade (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Andy, this topic was discussed amongst a few people during the  OER Barn Raising, and we essentially agreed that the content that was removed could be made more concise then put back in. Litjade (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent bulk removals 

message: I am surprised this hasn't been introduced into the article.
https://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/12/18/an-update-on-flickr-wall-art/
https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157649408582487/
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/44586
Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr runs away from CC Content 

message: I am dismayed at how prejudiced this article is against CC. It fails to mention, for example, that there is no way in the US to designate that materials are in the public domain and freely available for resuse. This is a tool that more libraries are turning to so that we can let users know when works in our collections are clearly copyright free, such as pre-modern manuscripts, which is my own area of expertise.````— Preceding unsigned comment added by St. Brigit (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's rather far on the critical side. It might be interesting to adopt some info from m:Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences, but I'm not volunteering. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess (2015) 

message: I suggest that Mountain View, California be removed as the headquarter city of Creative Commons. As of late 2014 CC has not had an office in Mountain View, California. https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43873 Tvol (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  location is no longer mountain view, california 

message: I don't think that there are enough images in some articles sometimes people need to see the stuff just please give us  some more images and can you please make wikipedia more exciting it's so boring you only have articles about boring stuff how about some more fun stuff and less articles just be more creative!!! Are dgfufjjfdc (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  more creativity 

message: Creative Commons Australia redirects to Creative Commons, but Talk:Creative Commons Australia still exists as a talk page with content and does not redirect to Talk:Creative Commons. —danhash (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned talk page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Creative Commons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nursingworld.org/ojin/infocol/info_12.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WFM. Be..anyone (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I can help in translate to arabic  Frantic flame (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: It was too long for what it was meant to summarize. It was split into both what Creative Commons was and its history and founders. I think a more effective split is to introduce the article with what the license is and have a separate "History" subsection. The introduction could also tone down the technical jargon. Possibly leaving the legal terminology to a particular subsection for the formal legal powers behind CC would be more beneficial to the average user and to the specific person wanting to understand the law behind CC.
Dallasnguyen (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I moved the text here which was in Creative_Commons#Criticism_of_the_non-commercial_license to its own article at Creative Commons NonCommercial license.
I made the new article because there is enough media about the noncommercial license to justify a standalone article, and because putting all this content into either Creative Commons or Creative Commons licenses would be WP:UNDUE weight in either of those articles.
I replaced the text here with my own brief summary. Comments from anyone? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article to make Creative Commons NonCommercial license 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Biopact. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Biopact until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biopact" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: It seems to me that the article includes information, which is ballast and could be moved to the Creative Commons licenses article. The other problem I see is a citation of the high amount of criticism and thus, it seems to be a little bit POV.Juandev (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: https://branddb.wipo.int/en/brand/WO500000001459412?asStructure=%7B%22_id%22:%22ab07%22,%22boolean%22:%22AND%22,%22bricks%22:%5B%5D%7D
The "V" with a leaf on one end is protected. Please remove this image. Lswissveg (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vegan_friendly_icon.svg violates a protected trademark. 

message: Founders' Copyright redirects here, but ^F the page finds no info on Founder's Copyright. Presumably it was once here, but now no longer? --2A10:3781:26A9:1:5799:3393:6DD:6684 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken redirect/lost info 

message: I propose merging Open Content Project into Creative Commons. I think the content in Open Content Project can easily be explained in the context of Creative Commons (if it isn't already), and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Creative Commons. --82.174.179.202 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 03:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal