http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8127 <pre>Kevin, I wonder if Abby means that she's attaching the image directly to the tweet, using twitpic or somesuch. In that case, the only place to put an attribution would be in the tweet itself. Otherwise, though, I'd agree that the site where the image is hosted would be the better place for attribution, since it allows for a longer attribution and a longer tweet, if needed. Emma On 19/06/2013 8:45 AM, Kevin Phillips wrote: _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Emma Carpenter 2013-06-19T07:42:05 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8126 <pre>Hi Abby, AFIK you don't HAVE to attribute in order to share, you're simply sharing a link to the work, you're not remixing it or re-posting/re-hosting it. If you did re-use or re-post it, the license details and attribution would be on your flickr or your instagram or your webpage rather than in your tweet usually. Having said that, a #CCBY tag might help to indicate the work is CC, as a promotional exercise. So I think your plan is more that ample, though others might have a different point of view? Kevin -------------------------------------------------- From: "Abby Anderson" &lt;abby.anderson-BUHhN+a2lJ4&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:42 PM To: &lt;cc-community-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; Subject: [cc-community] Attributing Properly in Tweets _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Kevin Phillips 2013-06-19T06:45:32 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8125 <pre>WikiSym, the 9th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration OpenSym, the 2013 International Symposium on Open Collaboration August 5-7, 2013 | Hong Kong, China Registration is open: http://wikisym.org/wsos2013/participating/registration CONFERENCE PROGRAM The conference program is led by three renowned keynote speakers: Phil Bourne, founding editor of PLOS, will talk about the era of open, Pockey Lam, of the Digital Freedom Foundation, will talk about open education, and Dario Taraborelli, of the Wikimedia Foundation, will talk about current and future Wikipedia research. The keynotes are enhanced by a strong research track on the different aspects of open collaboration, namely wikis, Wikipedia, open source, and open access. Open space, community events and socializing during coffee breaks and dedicated social events like the welcome reception and the conference dinner complement and enhance the WikiSym + OpenSym 2013 experience. An industry tutorial track ensures a healthy mixture of pa</pre> Haggen So 2013-06-19T06:48:55 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8124 <pre>Hi! Is there a standard procedure for attributing an author's work in a tweet? I plan on using travel-related photos that have a CC-BY license in my tweets, but I have not been able to find information on how to attribute the photo in a post properly. All I have seen on Twitter is the hashtag: #CCBY with no reference to the author. I asked an author on Flickr what he preferred, and he said just to include his Twitter handle in the tweet. I tweeted his photo and the post looked like this: Insert blurb here. By: &lt; at &gt;authortwitterhandle #CCBY Thanks! Abby Twitter: &lt; at &gt;translatorapps _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Abby Anderson 2013-06-18T20:42:34 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8123 <pre>Hi all, I apologise for this slight misuse of the mailing list, but I'm hopeful that some readers will be CC wiki users. If so, and if you log in via OpenID, how did you set/find your password? I am trying to remove some spam from an article, which means I need to designate an email address, for which I need to confirm my password... a password which I don't have, because I logged in via OpenID rather than registering an account (my OpenID password is not accepted). In case the word 'spam' sets someone itching while my question remains unanswered, it's at the end of the final paragraph here: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=CC_Affiliate_Network&amp;action=edit My sincerest apologies if this is sent twice; SMTP is a pain in the arse sometimes. Best, Emma Carpenter _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Emma Carpenter 2013-06-14T11:40:59 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8122 <pre> _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</pre> Tamra Wallace 2013-06-11T16:01:41 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8121 <pre>Two European Coordinators for Creative Commons The staff of Creative Commons has now two European members. One is John Weitzmann from Germany and the other one is Gwen Franck from Belgium. They will replace Jonas Öberg (Sweeden) in the role of CC Regional Coordinators for the European area. http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2013/06/two-european-coordinators-for-creative.html -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Simone Aliprandi 2013-06-10T22:14:59 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8120 <pre>Trademarks do not arise automatically the way that copyright does but must be registered in a specific trademark office for a specific class of goods and services. Use which is not in the course of trade, in countries where the mark is not registered cannot be prohibited by trademark holders. Use in the course of trade in a jurisdiction in which the mark is registered but in association with goods and services for which the mark is not registered raises the indeterminable question of whether the use 'dilutes' the distinctiveness of a 'well known mark'. On 4 June 2013 13:10, Jan Wrobel &lt;wrr-NSHaCcR3jVtg9hUCZPvPmw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; wrote: </pre> Andrew Rens 2013-06-04T22:30:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8119 <pre> It might depend upon the actual terms and manner of the release. That is a question for a lawyer familiar with the specific cases. There is a similar problem with patents and software which is why licenses like the GPL include an explicit patent grant. A company can release public domain software that uses one of their patents and require patent license payments in some cases. (indeed there is a line of thought that software should never have been copyrightable merely patentable.. - not that I agree with it!) Alan _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Alan Cox 2013-06-04T22:10:59 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8118 <pre>[...] The search tool that Stephan posted indicates that the trademark claim was filled in October 2007 and registered in 2009. Wikipedia links to an archive page showing that the icon already existed and was available under 4 open licenses in July 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070703074314/http://shareicons.com/). This probably allows to challenge ShareThis claim. Do I understand correctly, that even if a trademark owner by itself released its trademarked icon to the public domain, it doesn't mean the icon can be used for all purposes? If the trademark is valid, the owner can still restrict the usage? Thank you, Jan _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Jan Wrobel 2013-06-04T21:46:48 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8117 <pre>This is interesting for me because I designed the logo for the Pirate Party of New Zealand http://pirateparty.org.nz/files/ec-artwork/pirate-party.svgand we had a very similar concern. I wanted that people could share the logo freely, and even print and sell merchandise such as T-shirts commercially, but not use it in a way that implied they were 'representing' the party. So I released it as CC0 with a note in the metadata saying this as clearly as possible. I've also added a similar note with many of my photos where they are primarily a person; CC0 does not grant a model release which is required for many commercial or advertising uses. It's interesting that the Whitehouse and NASA do much the same; all of their official photos are public domain (government work) but you can't run an advertising campaign pretending your product is endorsed by Obama or Hadfield. It sounds like "Share This" are trying the same thing; you would probably be free to print and sell share-this T-shirts (which gives them free a</pre> Bruce Kingsbury 2013-06-04T19:59:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8116 <pre> Trademark and copyright are two different things. It's usually hard for something graphical to be trademarked and public domain because you can't trademark something that is already in general usage (or if you try it your mark can be challenged). Thus marks generally happen to be copyrighted works too. Not always though, some marks may not even qualify for copyright protection. For example being public domain means you can modify that logo to not look like theirs, or do other things with it that don't infringe trademark law - like use it in an app which is using ShareThis. Trademark also deals with different things. It's about protecting abuse of the goodwill. So if you sit at home and use it nobody cares (unlike copyright). On your website it's a different matter. Which is the issue here. The question really is what the history of the mark is and whether they previously didn't protect it or let it be used generally. If they did then they may have a problem. If not then the trademark is implying your sh</pre> Alan Cox 2013-06-04T19:44:31 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8115 <pre> I don't think you received the take down request from the icon author, Jeff Israel (Ref. http://openiconlibrary.sourceforge.net/README.html), but from Share This. The way I read the letter, they are invoking their trademark rights, which is different from copyright. Trademarks here go to how the image is used; this is why they talk about confusion. You can find the trademark registration by searching for serial number 3641766 at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/. But is the "less than sign in a box" without the text SHARETHIS protected? Stephan -- Stephan Wehner -&gt; http://stephan.sugarmotor.org (blog and homepage) -&gt; http://loggingit.com -&gt; http://www.thrackle.org -&gt; http://www.trafficlife.com -&gt; http://stephansmap.org -&gt; http://www.buckmaster.ca -&gt; http://twitter.com/stephanwehner / &lt; at &gt;stephanwehner _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Stephan Wehner 2013-06-04T18:59:37 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8114 <pre>Hello, I'm new to the group. I've received a take down request and I would like to ask if in your opinion it is valid. I used a following icon for a service I maintain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sharethis.svg According to the Open Icon Library, the icon was released to the public domain. According to Wikipedia, it is quad-licensed under the GPL, LGPL, BSD and Creative Commons Attribution 2.5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_icon I've received a request from the icon author to stop using the icon (forwarded at the bottom). I plan to comply with the request, because I was not aware that the icon is associated with some specific service, but I wonder if the request is valid? Can work that the author requires to be used on very restrictive terms (https://sharethis.com/usage-guidelines) be released to the public domain or covered by some liberal license? Best regards, Jan Wrobel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: XYZ &lt;pubservices-85nAhUwVmTaakBO8gow8eQ&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; Recen</pre> Jan Wrobel 2013-06-04T17:10:52 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8113 <pre>Thanks for doing this, Maarten. It looks much better than the chart at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_derive_or_adapt_a_work_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_apply_to_the_resulting_work.3F However, one thing I like about that old chart is that I think it is more clear about which license may be (or needs to be) used for the derivative work. This is clarified by the text along the left hand column ("Status of original work") and top row ("Terms that may be used for a derivative work or adaptation"). To me, this is slightly more clear than the explanation provided for in the updated chart ("Use at least the most restrictive licensing of the two"). timothy On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Maarten Zeinstra &lt;mz-sOvh2MlPrOM&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</pre> Timothy Vollmer 2013-06-03T16:18:19 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8112 <pre>Hi all, Creative Commons Netherlands found a need for an updated CC license compatibility chart where users can easily find and check whether two cc licensed works can be combined without having to contact the rights owner. We've had our designer at Kennisland take a swing at it and came up with the chart that I published on the CC wiki: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Wiki/cc_license_compatibility. There are versions available in png, pdf and AI and the charts is licensed under a cc0 ( see http://creativecommons.nl/2013/05/31/licentiecompatibiliteit-hoe-zat-het-ook-alweer/ ). Please take a look at it and change the page/chart where you think it's necessary. I thought it would be interesting to share this file here as you will probably have to explain this in your local communities as well. Cheers, Maarten Zeinstra </pre> Maarten Zeinstra 2013-05-31T15:16:16 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8111 <pre> I see that Bruce Kingsbury gave the archived version of the heise article. In case you meant archiving the http://diglib.hab.de/copyright.html page, I've done it in http://www.webcitation.org/6GsbtTvGr (if I understand correctly the red banner about a possible discontinuation of WebCite unless enough funds are gathered, it concerns further archiving requests after the end of 2013, not the already archived sites). _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Claude Almansi 2013-05-25T13:36:03 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8110 <pre>Hanno Böck skrev 2013-05-24 12:36: See article 72 of the German Copyright Act: Article 72 (1) Photographs and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works. (2) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall belong to the photographer. (3) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall expire 50 years after publication of the photograph, or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, after the latter, but 50 years after its manufacture where the photograph has not been published or legally communicated in public within such period. The period shall be calculated in accordance with Article 69. Translation found on http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community </pre> Peter Brink 2013-05-25T12:03:04 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8109 <pre>Hmmm.. just noticed after I posted that it said "does not have" at the top. But eventually we hope it will be archived there and is a more permanent record of the site as it currently is. On 25 May 2013 13:42, Bruce Kingsbury &lt;zcat-9BlqIvnJYTPY/92Bspce4g&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</pre> Bruce Kingsbury 2013-05-25T01:45:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8108 <pre>http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bibliotheca-Augusta-stellt-Digitalisate-unter-Creative-Commons-Lizenz-1868831.html On 25 May 2013 13:38, Chris Sakkas &lt;sanglorian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</pre> Bruce Kingsbury 2013-05-25T01:42:51 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.general/8107 <pre>Occasionally situations come up where someone licences their work under a free and open licence but it's likely that they'll later remove the reference to the free and open licence (for example here, they might well switch it to CC BY-NC-SA). Is there a procedure for archiving the site now, so we (a) can prove that it was CC BY-SA licensed and (b) can know which parts were CC BY-SA licensed in the future? Cheers, Chris *Chris Sakkas **Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki &lt;http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/&gt; and the Living Libre blog &lt;http://www.livinglibre.com&gt; and Twitter feed&lt;https://twitter.com/#%21/living_libre&gt; .* On 25 May 2013 00:02, Hanno Böck &lt;hanno-60OJuG18Xr6zQB+pC5nmwQ&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</pre> Chris Sakkas 2013-05-25T01:38:42 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.org.creativecommons.general