Creative Commons licences explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2011
- I created this video with the TH-cam Video Editor ( / editor)by Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand with support from InternetNZ. To find out more about Creative Commons in New Zealand visit us at creativecommons.org.nz
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Now its time to download this video and post it as my own
great opportunity!
Get You tube studio
That's not necessarily creative commons. CC can still mean, no commercial use and you have to attribute the original creator.
copywright my guy
@@user-pn9qp1sr3e mate you probably 4'3 and have no friends
Great explanation! I’ve started to use the Creative Commons license and love the flexibility it gives me when I share my work with the world :)
This was very helpful! Clear points, simple breakdown, easy to understand, all around great video. Thank you!
Thanks for sharing our CC video!
Well done and so simple to understand now. Thank you!
Thanks helped me a lot. You explained it clear and precise. I love your drawing style as well. It helps a lot doing illustrations! :D :O
Invaluable. I just need a voice and animation to take me through it. Thanks.
Well that clears things up. Thanks for making this video.
how do you know if the song or the content has cc
The content will say that it is cc licensed and what cc license it uses.
@@WanderlustVegans //
thank you so much for making this video, making my life so much easier!!
This was very helpful, thanks!
AWESOME VIDEO!
Where do I see the logos that tell me if I need to give credit?
So helpful, thank you.
I assume you are the artist in this video. Very cool!
Is it just me or is cc one of the greatest inventions ever devised by the human race?
Just skip to 3:03 to get to what you're looking for
Thanks for sharing this video
Great video looking forward to good coomons
THAKS
FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO
Hi, the video itself says it's creative commons, but the license listed for this video is the Standard TH-cam Licence. Could you change this to creative commons in the video options? Thanks!
Why does he need to change the license of the video? It's not his responsibility to take any kind of action "based on your recommendation" or suggestion.
@@lostinkyoto8444 It was a request, not a demand.
Thank you so much
thank you! :D
I am going to use the kiwi design from this video without naming the creator - thanks.
What program is made the voice?
thanks for let me use the video ©️
The website says you also have to include a copyright notice, disclaimer notice, and a license notice, but I have not seen any examples of this. Is it as simple as "I dont own this thing" or do i have to include something else?
Depends on the license, if it requires attribution (which many of them do) just include the name of the author and link to the original work in your creation.
your video also creative commons can i use this?
Now I understand. TIME TO REMOVE MY CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE!
I have a problem with this part (regarding music): "remix, adapt, or build upon your work." Does this mean (if the artist doesn't give permssion) they have to use your song start-to-finish or can they still only use part of it? Also, what artist with CC music would want their EDM track to be turned into, say, gangsta rap or heavy metal? No fans of these 2 genres will go and look up your EDM song and listen to it if they don't like that genre, will they? So they can just hoover off of your inspiration and sound and turn it into something unrecognizable from the original. Who'd want THAT?! I really don't understand ...
Dhanks
So, if I choose to break the rules on a BY-ND licence by creating a derivative work, then I can legally relicense the derivative work under a different licence (because it doesn't contain the SA part) provided I still attribute the original creator. Is that correct?
I've found multiple tables online confirming that that is correct. If it's not, why doesn't the website have a similar table clarifying the matter?
well you'd probably run into some issues regarding copyright infringement. Unless covered by a provision like fair use, you'd be using a copyrighted work without licensing it properly, and while whatever you made would be yours in terms of copyright (and the creator of what you infringed upon would have no rights to it, just like the kardashians can't themselves share pictures others have taken of them without permission), you'd probably run into issues distributing it if the aforementioned is the case
I posted a video and I been published. You tube mark it as Creative Commons attribution. License. What does it mean?
great sir it is very helpful
Do you have to cite Creative Commons License even tho they already give permission
using the cc no derivs lisence is kinda bad. expect in some cases where it could be good like opinion pieces. But if you take a photo please do not use no derivs on it as it makes life harder.
So if i use No Commercial (NC) content on my video i can't upload it to youtube and earn money from ads ? I can only use CC-BY content in my youtube videos, right ?
But youtube automatically gives me a copyright strike for using the music that is under Creative Commons license, why? What do I do about it? I cannot monetize my video and got a message that A copyright owner claimed some content in your video. Any advice?
well, this is a matter of several factors.
- did you follow the license, as in, did you make sure it's not NC, ND, etc.?
- do you need anything else? e.g. in the UK something like making a music video requires a second license, it's called a synchronization license, and while it's usually not used against something like a youtube video it very well could
- can you _actually_ use said song *and its components* ? A big TH-camr, MumboJumbo, had this issue a while ago where he used Can't Stop Me by ProLeTeR and it turned out that, while he had a license for this, ProLeTeR had not properly licensed / informed of the use of a sample owned by Warner Chapel, so he received somewhere around 1500 copyright strikes once said sample entered the content ID pool
- content ID is not skewed towards you, it is fundamentally there to prevent TH-cam from being sued to kingdom come by large studios because of blatant facilitation of mass copyright infringement through their platform, which arguably lives off of doing exactly that. Content ID is part of a contract between said studios and TH-cam detailing how there's a system to detect their works (which they submit), and which provides them options such as ad revenue diversion, restrictions or blocking of infringing works as suing everyone would be impractical (and not good for TH-cam's prosperity). TH-cam will always side with them as a matter of survival, as if any big player left this agreement or otherwise got too fed up they could still go the "let's sue TH-cam into the ground" route. You can appeal, but that opens you up to a lawsuit. This is good because if the other person has no case (and/or not millions of dollars) you win, to reject an appeal you need to file an actual suit in copyright court, however this means that if you pick your fights badly you'll actually have to go to the world's biggest money-drain which was never designed for non-obscenely rich individuals
great video on this: Tom Scott's "TH-cam's copyright system isn't broken; the world's is" or LegalEagle's copyright for TH-camrs course on Nebula (or his recent hit-piece on xQc stealing)
it will help in my computers exam thanks
Do I have to officially copyright my material through US Copyright Office in order to implment and use Creative Commons? If not, can someone explain?
No. According to American law (and the law of most other countries thanks to an international treaty called the Berne Convention), anything you create is automatically copyrighted whenever it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." So if you write a story, snap a photo, record a song, etc. it is copyrighted as soon as it exists in a physical form such as a book, photo, or as a digital file. All these are tangible ways to express your creativity in a fixed, permanent, form. You don't need to register anything to own the copyright or implement and use Creative Commons. All you need to do is to publish the work with a specific Creative Commons license attached. Practically speaking, that means the license should be clearly visible (e.g. it should appear on the cover or in the front matter of your book, or alongside the photo on the webpage where you have chosen to publish it). What matters is that you make it clear to others what the conditions are for using your copyrighted work by clearly displaying your chosen license in some obvious way.
Superb
Just one question. I am a travel vlogger and gamer. If I make a vlog or a video where I play a game and I want anyone to use that vlog video or game video anyway they want, how do I acquire the creative commons licence for it? Do I simply write Creative commons attribution in the video description and be done with it. Or is there a form that I have to submit somewhere and the website creativecommons.org will then reply and say now your video is licenced go on and share it. How does it work?
Xxx
All you need to do is publish your work with a clear statement attached that it is made available under a particular Creative Commons (CC) license. Usually this is done by writing the name of the license (e.g. CC BY-SA 3.0) or by including an image (available from the Creative Commons website downloads page) of the license type. Be careful though if your work includes third-party content. For example, if you make a video of yourself playing a video game, it probably will feature graphics and music that are "fully" copyrighted and not Creative Commons licensed. Putting a CC license on that video would be misleading, unless you clearly state that it contains third party content that is not available under the same terms as the CC license.
Here's a link to CC licensing images you can attach to a work you want to publish under those terms.
creativecommons.org/about/downloads
Here's an explanation of how to "mark" any videos or other content you create that contains third party content not available under a CC license:
wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Marking/Creators/Marking_third_party_content
?
A question, if I use smth that was CC0 at the time, can the owner change it later on to a CCBY or others?
I think the owner always has IP rights to the content, the CC is just a layer for guidance, I guess content CC could change but would be difficult to recall obvs
Process Arts but couldn’t he then sue me for using content that is CCBY without credit even though it was CC0 when using it?
@@nyxi6689 ... would need to seek professional legal advice from someone who knows. Would expect a process of negotiation and request to remove content and respect the IP holders wishes to withdrawn the content from use, as the starting point.
I'm not a lawyer and what follows is not legal advice, but I do have some information relevant to your question. The Creative Commons FAQ on their official website says, "CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms."
There is some legal precedent in American law that supports the irrevocable nature of CC licenses. In a 2015 case (Art Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC) the court found that no copyright infringement had occurred in the use of a photo for commercial purposes which was in accordance with the terms of the CC licensed it had been issued under. The photographer later changing his mind about the license did not create infringement.
There is no guarantee however that every court in the world will come to a similar decision if the creator changes their mind about the license. One could perhaps argue that if you KNOW the license has changed before you begin actually using that content, then the latter license applies (even if you acquired it under the original license). So I cannot say that continuing to use a work under its original CC license is without legal risk if the license were ever changed.
This isn't just a theoretical argument either. The news website _Motherboard_ ran a story some months ago titled "SpaceX Just Retroactively Put Copyright Restrictions on Its Photos" describing how photos released by this company which had originally been made available under a CC0 license were now relicensed to prohibit commercial uses. It's unfortunate when this happens because it creates a needless mess.
@@photios4779 Many thanks for this, yes it can be confusing and more reason to be 100% sure you want to release content under a CC licence from the start. The wider point is CC licence provides a layer/framework and opportunity to agree/discuss fair use of content with a author. So thats a positive thing to happen and both sides should respect that is the case and you both want to do the right thing. The alternative is people just do what they want without thinking of the consequences.
So it means If I use a material in my game with "CCShareAlike" Then Anyone can edit my game and resell it????
Cool
Which software is used to make these type of video ??
a whiteboard and markers
Do i have to pay for this license????
why was CC0 not covered?
This video was created before CC 0 was added.
youtube is about to remove the video attributions options :/
I don't completely get SA license. So if I use a photo under a SA license but make it into a line drawing then change it to be more than that, I need to allow people to use the new work in the same way? What if I am selling it, and don't really want people just to copy it and sell it also? Then people could make a copy and share the exact same thing without altering it.
If the creative work/intellectual property you used to create whatever you created, albeit modification or composition or etc., had an SA license first and foremost, then whatever the other licenses the initial creator put on the work, so BY, NC, and/or ND, must be put on your work.
Going off of your example, if the original photo had BY (default), SA, and ND, then I believe, by SA, your line drawing must be licensed as BY, SA, and ND.
I think SA is self-reflective in this regard, meaning that once any creator along the use chain of that first photo, not necessarily the original creator, invokes SA, then every use after that must also include SA.
Say, for example, someone takes a photo of a bird landing on a tree. That person is the primary creator, and by default, use of their work by anyone else requires a BY Creative Commons license unless they want to infringe on full-on copyright. Say this original creator chooses BY and NC. If someone else comes along to use the original photo, that secondary person can invoke BY, NC, and ND. So, as the use chain goes on and on, there is a risk that more and more licenses and restrictions could be put on creations made from the original photo. To avoid that, someone may invoke SA to limit the excess power people down the line might want to place.
For your second example, it depends. If the original photo invoked BY and NC, then you don't have any right to sell it. If the original photo only had BY, then you are allowed to use it and possibly make money from it. Now, once you create your line drawing, changing it from the original, you may want to license the work for yourself. At that point you can put on your own BY, SA, and NC, forcing people who incorporate your work into theirs to attribute you and not make money off of the creation. The original creator, the person you got the original photo from, would not be entitled to any commercial benefits, I think.
Note that at any point, if an SA is next to any license, all users along the chain have to keep the same licenses. If your original photo was BY and SA, then if you want to use it/modify it and want to have a license of your own, that license must have BY and SA too.
I'm new to this too, so I may have this entirely wrong, but I hope that helps.
that's a you problem, unless some exception like fair use clearly covers what you did, you're at the mercy of doing whatever the license says to legally use that work. If it says it shall have the same terms, then that's how it is, otherwise you can't use it (outside of personal use, nobody can stop you from doing whatever you like with the thing as long as you don't distribute it)
now i understand
Captions please
good
*meanwhile me trying to crop out the credits in the picture I found off the internet*
I liked it
I would like the png of CC KIWI
Is this video creative commons?
So, there's no way to use Creative commons videos from youtube to make my own videos and earn money ?
Thanks for the reply man! Really, appreciate it :)
? hmmm
Creative Commons is a wonderful option for creators who want their works to be freely distributed, shared and reused. But there is one flaw that gives me (and probably many others) hesitation. If I snap a photo and upload it to the Web under a CC license, I do *NOT* want it to be used in a neo-Nazi, homophobic or other generally offensive context. Someone could comply with the conditions of my chosen CC license while using it in a way I find profoundly morally objectionable. I realize this gets into thorny questions of "moral rights" and just how to define what is and isn't offensive content, but still, I find the CC licenses to be lacking in this respect.
The Creative Commons official website states in their FAQ, "As a general matter, all CC licenses preserve moral rights to the extent they exist (they do not exist everywhere)." This is a problem in a jurisdiction like the United States where the recognition of moral rights under copyright law is far more limited than in the European Union. It would be nice to have additional CC licensing options that include robust moral rights that prohibit uses regarded as generally offensive.
12:22⁴⁴4444
Anyone here from UAlbany
1:61⁴⁴4444
1:43³³+14:43⁴⁴4444
8÷2-6=
@@LODOKING2885:33
Who is here because they are forced to by your school
Nothing is automatically copyrighted. You have to apply for Copyrights, Intellectual Property rights, etc. to protect anything you have created. None of this happens without you doing anything.
Actually no. You do not need to register Copyright or Trademark in America aslong as they are recorded in a fixed medium.
This is true with regards to patents and trademarks, but copyrights are an exception. The United States and most other countries are signatories to the Berne Convention according to which a copyright exists whenever a creative work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." This can be anything ranging from a printed book, to a painted canvas, a sculpture, a photograph, a music CD or even a digital file. The United States used to require registration to obtain a copyright, but this was abolished in 1989. Now copyrights are automatically acquired simply by creating something. It is still possible to register your copyright to prove your ownership (and under American law, registration is a necessary prerequisite to being able to collect statutory damages for infringement), but registration is NOT needed to own a valid copyright.
good
12:26⁴⁴4444
12:16⁴⁴4444