Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open content. One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of which is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992
On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open content. One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of which is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just examples of them using others' open content?
(IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's impossible!" with the latter in control.)
- d.
Well, that's the next step! The good thing is that they're starting to /use/ it. The closest they've come, AFAIK, is a 'Creative Archive Licence', which was similar to CC-BY-SA-ND-NC. It died a death in 2006 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/creativearchive/licence/index.shtml
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992
Correct: Derivatives are allowed
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992
CC-BY-SA-NC isn't a bad license. I know we strongly prefer licenses that allow commericial use (and need them if we're going to use the content on Wikimedia projects), but if -NC is the best we can get we should be trying to encourage it. Is there any way we can revive the 2006 proposal?
PS Having just looked at that link, there is a "UK only" clause. I don't think we could live with that... (I understand why it is there - the BBC makes a lot of money selling its content overseas - but geographic limits are highly impractical.)
On 10 April 2012 17:08, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Correct: Derivatives are allowed
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
On 10/04/2012 16:57, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open content. One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of which is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just examples of them using others' open content?
(IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's impossible!" with the latter in control.)
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
There's also a "no promotion" clause - you can't use the work to promote your organisation. This is above and beyond the normal 'no derogatory use' clause...
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992
On 10 April 2012 17:30, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There's also a "no promotion" clause - you can't use the work to promote your organisation. This is above and beyond the normal 'no derogatory use' clause...
This sounds like a licence that deserves to die a death.
OTOH, actual free-as-in-freedom content reliably explodes heads in the content industry. Me on the phone, multiple times:
"But we can't just lose control of our stuff!" "It works for us. You called me, after all."
- d.
On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 17:33, David Gerard wrote:
This sounds like a licence that deserves to die a death.
Disagree. The point of the NC and ND licenses isn't so much so they can be used on Wikipedia but really as a stepping stone into CC for nervous types.
You might license something under CC BY-NC and watch it be reused a bit: someone pops it into a blog post or into a PowerPoint deck. And, holy crap, the world doesn't end, all is fine and nobody is being asked difficult questions about evil Communist freedom-haters who want to destroy Western civilisation. All is swell.
That's a pretty good practical argument when the Wikipedians turn up and start banging on about free licenses. Don't compromise on that: we should be stringent about PD, CC BY and BY SA only (although, incidentally, if we are to have non-free content, I'd rather have a CC BY NC licensed image than an all rights reserved image if possible, so long as it doesn't affect the number of contributed free images we have).
But let's not call for licenses to die or be killed: they serve an important role in allowing the cautious to get their toes wet.
On 10 April 2012 17:56, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
But let's not call for licenses to die or be killed: they serve an important role in allowing the cautious to get their toes wet.
Just as long as we can still burn the GFDL at the stake.
- d.
On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 18:00, David Gerard wrote:
Just as long as we can still burn the GFDL at the stake.
Oh sure, no argument there. ;-)
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:56, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Disagree. The point of the NC and ND licenses isn't so much so they can be used on Wikipedia but really as a stepping stone into CC for nervous types.
I hope this is true, but the handful of anecdotes I know of where someone moves in one direction (mostly individuals dropping NC and/or ND) or the other (sadly, Khan Academy) doesn't give me much confidence it is.
You might license something under CC BY-NC and watch it be reused a bit: someone pops it into a blog post or into a PowerPoint deck. And, holy crap, the world doesn't end, all is fine and nobody is being asked difficult questions about evil Communist freedom-haters who want to destroy Western civilisation. All is swell.
Putting stuff on the Internet constitutes getting one's feet wet.
Mike
Well, actually we don't know it works for us. Our stuff is in early draft, and re-use of text is already making life pretty difficult already (checking for copyvios, notability, and clones in repressive regimes (Baidu Baike) ). We are also causing breaks in attribution chains every time we delete something that is mirrored, and the case law is still patchy to say the least.
On 10/04/2012 17:33, David Gerard wrote:
"But we can't just lose control of our stuff!" "It works for us. You called me, after all."
On 10 April 2012 18:12, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
Well, actually we don't know it works for us. Our stuff is in early draft, and re-use of text is already making life pretty difficult already (checking for copyvios, notability, and clones in repressive regimes (Baidu Baike) ). We are also causing breaks in attribution chains every time we delete something that is mirrored, and the case law is still patchy to say the least.
By "works", I mean that Wikipedia is the great big unignorable case of free content working and being good enough to be useful.
And for them to call me. The context is them saying free content is just impossible and me pointing out we're the counterexample.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org