Talk:Creative Commons unplugged/Remix and compatibility
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Suggest moving symbols in "Test your license remix knowledge" | 2 | 13:19, 23 January 2012 |
| Understanding what a copy is | 3 | 09:42, 24 January 2011 |
| Standard for abbreviated license: CC BY-SA or CC-BY-SA | 2 | 13:57, 20 January 2011 |
| Refresher on license symbols | 1 | 21:59, 19 January 2011 |
As the remix game is now on the following page, I think it makes sense to move the symbols in the "Test your license..." section to the beginning of the remix game page, and to delete the "Test your knowledge" section.
The alternative is to revise the wording to indicate that the "test" is on the next page.
Thoughts?
Alison
In the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Defining derivative works", I'm confused by the use of the term "copy":
"Under general copyright law, format shifting from one medium to another is considered a copy and therefore a derivative work."
Given what I've learned so far on this page, the use of the term copy relates to exact, verbatim copy. I'm wondering if this sentence might be more clear if we said "format shifting...is not considered an exact, verbatim copy...."
Just a heads up to a sentence that I found difficult to understand.
Alison
mmm I see the problem -- a tough one to explain clearly (hence all the legal debates on what constitutes a derivative work.
A digital copy is a "verbatim" copy and prohibited under copyright law (because its a copy :-)
So legally we must keep the sentence ""Under general copyright law, format shifting from one medium to another is considered a copy."
So I suggest deleting "and therefore a derivative work." from the original sentence.
Should we add an example of format shifting after this sentence:
"For instance, if you have a digital image in jpeg format, converting the same image to another format, for example, the gif file format, that would be a copy and not permitted under general copyright law.
I think I'm starting to understand what this paragraph is about. I don't think I got it before. I made a few changes, incorporating your suggestions as well as other wording, to improve the explanation. See what you think.
Actually, now that I "think" I understand it, this seems to be a big point--the idea that CC allows copies, to some extent for all of the licenses even when the license includes ND.
Alison
In the paragraph following the table the various licenses are written with CC unconnected by a dash: eg CC BY-SA. On "The CC licenses" page the licenses are written such that the CC is connected to the rest of the license with a dash: eg CC-BY-SA.
I'd always seen the abbreviations written with a dashes between CC and BY. Is there a de facto standard somewhere that we can use here?
Also, I noted that the licenses were listed in the table without the CC prefix. The CC can be inferred, except that PD doesn't have a CC prefix. But see Jane's comment below the table:
"PD is not a license - I think we should just nix PD from the chart as it may prove confusing, or define public domain and point this out. --Jane Park 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)"
I think both problems are solved if we move PD out of the table and make it a separate paragraph.
Thoughts?
Hi Alison,
Good question. Personally I've tended to write CC-BY-SA (but not from an informed convention as such.) Perhaps its better to remain consistent with the Creative Commons website which is "CC BY-SA" (I suppose grammatically speaking the latter is better.)
I've been thinking about Jane's comment -- about nixing the PD from the table. At this time my preference is to leave PD in the table (for pragmatic reasons.). The table is more about compatibility than licenses and PD is compatible with the other licenses. In the real world educators will come across PD materials and may want to re-license under one of the CC licenses.
My preference is to leave PD in the table, but that we add a qualifying note. That said -- a separate paragraph (taking PD out of the table will also work.)
At the end of the day -- I think this is an editorial preference --> make a call on what you think best. (I won't loose sleep if PD is not in the table ;-))
Yes, agree that we should follow CC convention and leave the CC unconnected. I'll make the necessary changes.
You are right. The table is more about compatibility. The note you added to explain that PD is not a license takes care of the issue for me.
I did now notice, however, that the rows and columns have different ordering. PD is first in one and last in the other. I recommend that PD be moved to be listed first in the columns. (This seems better than moving PD to be last in the rows because I think the juxtaposition of PD and BY is useful, and the table has a feel that it moves from more to less open.)
Alison
I added a quick refresher on which symbols go with which license term before the activity. I got to the activity and I didn't just know which is which, so I figured others might not also. (Aside: I tried to add the symbols in a table in the activity template, but couldn't get it to work--having the refresher beforehand seems just as good.)
Here's the issue: I wasn't able to find the PD-with-a-circle-around-it image for use in the case of public domain. Wayne, I'm hoping you know where this is and can replace with the correct one.
Thanks, Alison
