Thread: Boycott hip hop

Are we certain we understand what this so-called "Creative Commons" is? I'm familiar with copyright and trademark law (as well as international conventions, such as the Berne Convention), but I've never heard of Creative Commons. Nor have I ever heard of a law or other agreement that would permit the holder of a copyright/trademark such as the one in question to sue someone for the kind of non-commercial display that appears to be at issue here.

From what I can gather from the internet, Creative Commons appears to be some sort of vehicle to help artists license their copyrighted material (somewhat like ASCAP or BMI for music). If that is correct, that would make Creative Commons a mere licensing agency. The substantive source of the artist's rights - assuming his or her work would qualify for protection - appears to be applicable copyright law, not Creative Commons.

Originally Posted by misterjones

Are we certain we understand what this so-called "Creative Commons" is? I'm familiar with copyright and trademark law (as well as international conventions, such as the Berne Convention), but I've never heard of Creative Commons. Nor have I ever heard of a law or other agreement that would permit the holder of a copyright/trademark such as the one in question to sue someone for the kind of non-commercial display that appears to be at issue here.

From what I can gather from the internet, Creative Commons appears to be some sort of vehicle to help artists license their copyrighted material (somewhat like ASCAP or BMI for music). If that is correct, that would make Creative Commons a mere licensing agency. The substantive source of the artist's rights - assuming his or her work would qualify for protection - appears to be applicable copyright law, not Creative Commons.

I think this is more about respect than it is about law.

Really? For a discussion that's about respect rather than the law, I see an inordinate amount of discussion about who can sue whom, licensing agreements, consulting lawyers, etc.

OK so people get carried away... what else is new? I'm sure a good lawyer could swing it both ways anyway...

Originally Posted by misterjones

Are we certain we understand what this so-called "Creative Commons" is? I'm familiar with copyright and trademark law (as well as international conventions, such as the Berne Convention), but I've never heard of Creative Commons. Nor have I ever heard of a law or other agreement that would permit the holder of a copyright/trademark such as the one in question to sue someone for the kind of non-commercial display that appears to be at issue here.

From what I can gather from the internet, Creative Commons appears to be some sort of vehicle to help artists license their copyrighted material (somewhat like ASCAP or BMI for music). If that is correct, that would make Creative Commons a mere licensing agency. The substantive source of the artist's rights - assuming his or her work would qualify for protection - appears to be applicable copyright law, not Creative Commons.

The Creative Commons is basically just a group that created a set of licenses that artists can use. By marking a work as "licensed under Creative Commons such-and-such," it's basically saying "the copyright holder will give you the right to copy this work as long as you agree to these terms." They're usually also marked with Some rights reserved, as opposed to the usual All rights reserved that's found in a copyright statement. And contrary to popular belief, posting someone else's image on a blog without permission is not considered fair use, whether it's commercial or not (at least, under US copyright law).

Thread is 'under review' and temporarily closed. Sorry folks.