Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 51 of 51

Thread: Boycott hip hop

  1. #46
    Senior Member misterjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by misterjones; Dec-14-2011 at 17:53.

  2. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,122
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misterjones View Post
    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.

  3. #48
    Senior Member misterjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  4. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,122
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

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

  5. #50
    Senior Member Kopachris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Jackpot, Nevada
    Posts
    973
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misterjones View Post
    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).
    Nothing happens to me. -- Famous last words of Dr. John H. Watson

  6. #51
    Super Moderator jhar26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

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

  7. Likes oskaar, Kopachris liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •