mfioretti: copyright* + creative commons*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

23 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. occorre ricordare che alla maggior parte dei dati e dei documenti necessari per lo svolgimento delle funzioni tipiche delle pubbliche amministrazioni non è opportuno applicare la CC0, in quanto questa prevede il rilascio dei diritti morali che sono inalienabili, indisponibili, imprescrittibili secondo le norme nazionali ed europee

    Mi si permetta una piccola nota polemica. L’affermazione citata contiene ben due errori di importanza capitale.

    La privativa sulle basi dati non prevede diritti morali.

    Infatti, non si parla di “autore”, ma di “costitutore”. Evidentemente l’estensore si è fatto trarre in inganno dall’articolo 64-quinquies della Legge sul Diritto d’Autore, che parla appunto di “autore”, ma la legge italiana ha trasposto in maniera insufficientemente chiara la direttiva sulla protezione dei database, che distingue tra il copyright sulla banca dati, qualora la stessa “per la scelta o la disposizione del materiale costituiscono una creazione dell’ingegno propria del loro autore” abbia protezione sotto il copyright (art. 3.1). Ma qui si parla di diritti sui generis, previsti dall’art. 7 della direttiva, pacificamente diretta ai “costitutori” della banca dati, e dunque si parla del diritto previsto dall’art. 102-ter della LDA. Se si pensa, l’attribuzione del diritto d’autore è effettivamente a una o più persone fisiche, mentre il “rilevante investimento” per solito è effettuato da una persona giuridica.

    E qui viene in considerazione la seconda topica presa da chi ha scritto quel pezzo. La licenza CC BY, ne abbiamo parlato nel relativo articolo, rimandando a questo contributo, non tutela affatto il diritto morale, ma l’attribuzione di provenienza, che è concetto assolutamente distinto dal diritto morale di vedersi riconosciuta la paternità. L’attribuzione della fonte sarebbe molto probabilmente fatta, inoltre, all’ente costitutore, e non alle singole persone (chi? I dataset pubblicati contengono i nomi delle singole persone, forse?) le quali vi hanno lavorato (ma che non sono autori). L’ente, quale – in quanto persona giuridica – non può affatto vantare diritti morali. Si tratta evidentemente di una ragione inesistente.

    CC0 va benissimo.
    Voting 0
  2. The No-Derivatives option, frankly, is not very popular. People can tell it’s self-defeating.

    The Share-Alike option, on the other hand, is quite popular. And it’s the one that kept me using CC the longest. Even those of us who are OK with others using our content for commercial purposes find it repellent to think that those others could wall off their derived works from the commons, refusing to pass on the benefit they themselves had received. It’s such a compelling argument that the P2P Foundation is promoting a whole new license to prohibit exactly that. But, as discussed by Dave Wiley more than eight years ago, Share-Alike-licensed content can only be combined with other content with an identical CC license, which is very limiting—and that’s really just a subset of the general compatibility problems with CC-licensed content (updated various times and still complicated). This really defeats the purpose of the commons, as Wiley illustrates with another graphic. As the saying goes, the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

    In essence, the problem is that Creative Commons allows people to grant others freedom, but with very specific and often mutually exclusive conditions. And that’s only sort of freedom. Does that mean people who use CC are evil, and that I’m boycotting their content? Certainly not. It simply means I find it simplest and most effective to use the public domain (with a fallback to CC0 in jurisdictions that don’t recognize the public domain) to build the commons.

    That leaves the question of free riders, meaning those who would copyright their derived works. At this point, I don’t believe that a further fragmentation of licenses that are complicated to apply and almost impossible to enforce will serve to both build the commons and prevent this problem. Of the two, my priority is the former, but I do still want to keep corporations from strip-mining the commons.

    One way might be to simply ignore them and keep doing our own thing. It’s important to remember that they cannot remove anything from the public domain, nor can they copyright an idea in the public domain itself, only a work derived from it. So, if future iterations of an idea in the public domain are better than those derived works, then the gamble of having produced them will not pay off. Similarly, if small workshops make and sell the products in short runs, not bothering to copyright them, large corporations simply won’t be able to compete. Copyrights take a minimum of three months to register, and that’s enough time for P2P production to move on to something better. In fact, the threat of a copyright might actually spur innovation.

    Another consideration is that corporations creating derived works doesn’t have to result from content being in the public domain or in the commons. They repeat each others’ ideas all the time, in spite of trademarks and copyrights. It’s the idea that attracts attention, not how it’s licensed.
    Voting 0
  3. Il dubbio atroce che nasce ora (anche leggendo il dibattito da me avviato sulla lista internazionale di Creative Commons) è che, se si è verificato un simile fraintendimento su una piattaforma abbastanza chiara nella fase di licensing come Flickr, potrà sicuramente verificarsi anche da parte degli autori che frequentano altre piattaforme o che pubblicano le loro opere autonomamente sui loro siti e blog. Davvero avranno capito il senso dell’applicare una licenza o presto ci troveremo ad un altro caso simile?
    Voting 0
  4. If a photographer is not able to read a simple and clear license, the problem is in his brain (or maybe eyes) and not in the behavior of Flickr.
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2014-12-21)
    Voting 0
  5. Techdirt recently wrote about Spain's imminent and almost unbelievably foolish new copyright law designed to prop up old and failing business models in the publishing sector. Mike mentioned that it was potentially disastrous for things like fair use, Creative Commons and public domain material -- so broad is the reach of this new law's "inalienable right" for publishers to be paid when snippets of works appear elsewhere. Now Paul Keller has put together a great post on Communia's blog exploring the details of this particular threat:

    The law creates a right for 'electronic content aggregation providers' to use 'non-significant fragments of aggregated content which are disclosed in periodic publications or on websites which are regularly updated' without the permission of the rights holder. However such uses require payment of a 'fair remuneration' to the rights holder (via a collecting society). This is a right that content providers already have and can choose to license or waive assuming the non-significant fragments are copyrightable and absent an applicable exception or limitation. What this new legislation does is eliminate the ability of providers to choose how to exercise this right, and impose a mandatory royalty on reusers even for content that has been made available under a public license such as Creative Commons or that is otherwise available under an exception to copyright or in the public domain.

    The current reform of Spain's copyright law incorporates a new levy on universities that is related to open access to publications. Under the policy, universities that want to share research or other content for free will be prohibited from doing so beyond the confines of their institution and personnel. In other words, if you are an author from a university and you want to share beyond the academic world and someone links to your journal article, that person must pay even if you do not even want the payment. A percentage of these fees will be collected by the Spanish agency CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos) and the virtual campuses of universities will be required to comply.
    Voting 0
  6. Dr Daniel Mietchen, who is both an active research scientist and Wikipedian, is involved in the Topic Pages project. His other work includes a bot to import tens of thousands of media files from open access journals to Wikimedia Commons, a bot to import the full text of journal papers into Wikisource, and a project to make clear to readers whether papers cited in Wikipedia are Open Access. He accepts that “writing for Wikipedia is certainly not a high priority for active researchers these days” but says, “The Topic Pages scheme appears to be attractive for researchers early in their careers, when any good publication helps to differentiate them from the crowd. The idea of seeding a dynamically updatable review article on a topic central to their work is attractive to senior researchers as well.”

    The biggest challenges for authors, according to Mietchen, have been keeping within Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality and its requirement for an accessible lead section that summarises the whole paper. As happened with the Circular permutation article, copying into Wikipedia is one way to crowd-source accessible prose.

    These re-uses of open access papers are examples of what is called Journal-to-Wiki publication, but the Topic Pages are themselves written by a Wiki-to-Journal process. They are developed on the journal’s own wiki, which is publicly readable but only writable by the journal’s contributors and reviewers. This is built on the same free, open-source MediaWiki software that underlies Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia sites. Wikipedia’s extensive policies and Manual of Style also guide the Topic Pages, ensuring their compatibility with Wikipedia. As Topic Pages develop, they are reviewed using the on-wiki discussion tools. On publication of the article, these reviews are pasted into the Wikipedia talk page.
    Voting 0
  7. As well as enriching the data, crowdsourcing has highlighted examples where publishers have not, for whatever reason, made articles freely available, and where biases in the publishing system are leading to very high open access charges. These are both issues that we want to address head on.
    Voting 0
  8. It started from some tweets I sent a few days ago about an interesting new Zoo J Linn paper by Martin Brazeau & Matt Friedman. I’d include a pretty figure from this paper if I was allowed to, but unfortunately because it’s licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (CC BY-NC-ND) I can’t. To repost just a figure from the paper would be to create a smaller derivative work which the licence does not allow – I am only allowed to repost the *whole* article with absolutely no changes which is rather impractical for a 43 page article! Wiley in particular have a history of threatening scientist bloggers for reproducing a single figure from an article (read the Shelley Batts story here).

    restricted access

    It’s not just bloggers, and the outreach possibilities for the paper that are harmed with the use of such restrictive licenses – it also causes problems for RCUK funded researchers. Matt Friedman is based at Oxford at the moment – if the funding for this work came from any of the UK research councils, then the choice of the CC BY-NC-ND license could cause him problems – it is NOT compliant with the RCUK’s policy on open access. Wiley should know better than to offer this license to UK-based authors, but they have a significant conflict of interest in ensuring researchers choose more restrictive licencing options so that they can continue to be the sole proprietor of glossy reprint copies (ensured by the -NC clause). Both the -NC & the -ND clauses incidentally prevent the figures from being re-used on Wikipedia, another sad restriction for the authors who must have put a lot of effort into them.
    Voting 0
  9. a German court has weighed in on the subject, with interesting results (original in German.) The case concerned the use of a photo from Flickr, released under a CC-BY-NC license. The photo appeared on the Web site of Deutschlandradio, part of the German public broadcaster -- a non-commercial organization, that is. Alongside the photo, Deutschlandradio's Web site included the name of the artist, the license, and a link to its terms. Despite this, the photographer demanded 310 Euros plus costs on the grounds that Deutschlandradio had used the photo for commercial purposes.

    The public broadcaster pointed out that there was no charge for its Web site, there was no advertising, and no sponsorship. Nonetheless, the judge agreed it should be treated as a commercial use. In coming to this view, the judge drew on German law, which defined "non-commercial" as purely for personal use, and excluded all commercial use in the "generally accepted sense", and that apparently included radio stations, irrespective of how they were funded.

    As this underlines, quite what "non-commercial" means is likely to vary from country to country, and possibly even judge to judge. Yet another reason to avoid using CC-BY-NC altogether.
    Tags: , by M. Fioretti (2014-03-31)
    Voting 0
  10. il problema non è adottare un libro di testo, ma dotarsi degli strumenti più utili ed efficaci. E qui valgono tutte le osservazioni fatte sopra. Togliere potere alle major editoriali è un nobile compito, ma distruggere l’editoria scolastica è un altro paio di maniche. Piuttosto mi preoccuperei di creare maggiore competitività sul piano della qualità, impegnando le risorse intellettuali del nostro paese in un ampio programma di revisione della didattica. Perché le conseguenze delle proposte “garamondiane” sono due: nessun editore, ma un indistinto calderone di dati senza capo né coda a cui attingere senza una guida; un monopolio dei produttori di software e di app che nutrono un’altra bella fetta di mercato: quella dei devices, che come si sa sono prodotti da sant’uomini tutti disinteressatamente intenzionati a nutrire la mente dei nostri ragazzi. Con buona pace della nostra coerenza politica.


    I costi dell’editoria digitale. Questa è – per il momento – l’unica novità percepibile a livello di pubblica opinione. Ma un editore non è qualcuno che scrive i libri, bensì un datore di lavoro. E come li paga i suoi autori, a furia di CC e Open source? Tu dici: è l’aggettivo possessivo “suoi” che è sbagliato. Ognuno sia autore di se stesso. Ragazzi, non stiamo vendendo caramelle, ma strumenti di educazione. Vogliamo darci delle regole e dei principi di controllo?
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 3 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: copyright + creative commons

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle