Creative Commons: a license or an organization?
Posted: February 28, 2006 at 3:53 pm | 1 Comment
Yesterday I wrote a response on a posting at Joi Ito’s blog in which Creative Commons ‘presented’ a film (Teach by David Guggenheim). I didn’t go into the content of the film but raised the question what it means if CC ‘presents’ a film. Peter Howell wrote a response.
6- Geert Lovink @ February 28, 2006 06:48 AM
Dear Joi and Marcus, using Creative Commons is fine, but that’s not what the banner says. It reads: CC presents: This implies that CC is some form of organization and that it has, if not produced, at least arranged a screening and that the CC organization agrees with the content of the film. I find this confusing. CC is a license, not a statement about content. Or am I wrong? Geert
7- Peter Howell @ February 28, 2006 10:25 AM
Creative Commons is a license (or rather, a range of licenses, I believe,) … but check out the URL for the video: http://creativecommons.org/teach/…
The CC “organization” is certainly endorsing the movie to some degree, seeing as how they’re hosting the site.
But yes, it is confusing. CC is a license. Not a producer.
March 4th, 2006 at 3:09 am (#)
indeed, CC is not GPL. it could become an agency for the common interests of authors, producers, consumers, if it would try to replace the royality collecting agencies instead of leading to more fragmentation in the contracting of cultural works.