Comments on: Creating a Custom License http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:12:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: What to do about copyright « one cool site: wordpress blogging tipshttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/comment-page-1/#comment-120585 What to do about copyright « one cool site: wordpress blogging tips Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:55:29 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1331#comment-120585 [...] iCopyright - “This is a great opportunity for those who like Creative Commons-style licensing but have not found the exact terms to suit them to easily make their content available for limited reuse.” — Jonathan Bailey in Creating a Custom License. [...] [...] iCopyright – “This is a great opportunity for those who like Creative Commons-style licensing but have not found the exact terms to suit them to easily make their content available for limited reuse.” — Jonathan Bailey in Creating a Custom License. [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/comment-page-1/#comment-129110 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:36:45 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1331#comment-129110 I would submit a different argument. That allowing the license terms to be changed as well as the description already sacrifices the benefit of a uniform license set.<br><br>One of the perks of CC is not only consistent naming, but that we know my CC-BY-SA license will be the same as every other CC-BY-SA license. With iCopyrght Creators, that isn't certain, one has to read the description and the license itself to be sure that they are following the license.<br><br>The benefit of the standard license is already lost. One already has to read the full license text so I don't see how allowing title changes can hurt, but rather, only simplify the process of interpreting iCopyright license.<br><br>As far as being too U.S.-centric goes, I agree. You need to include provisions for dealing with moral rights at least as that is something that exists almost everywhere else in the world.<br><br>However, I also understand that you had to start somewhere and the U.S. was the most logical place... I would submit a different argument. That allowing the license terms to be changed as well as the description already sacrifices the benefit of a uniform license set.

One of the perks of CC is not only consistent naming, but that we know my CC-BY-SA license will be the same as every other CC-BY-SA license. With iCopyrght Creators, that isn't certain, one has to read the description and the license itself to be sure that they are following the license.

The benefit of the standard license is already lost. One already has to read the full license text so I don't see how allowing title changes can hurt, but rather, only simplify the process of interpreting iCopyright license.

As far as being too U.S.-centric goes, I agree. You need to include provisions for dealing with moral rights at least as that is something that exists almost everywhere else in the world.

However, I also understand that you had to start somewhere and the U.S. was the most logical place…

]]> By: Mike ODonnellhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/comment-page-1/#comment-129109 Mike ODonnell Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:56:39 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1331#comment-129109 Interested to hear from you and your readers if giving creators the ability to change the titles as well as the descriptions, outweighs the possible downside of creating confusion among the general public (potential licensees). One of the nice things about Creative Commons is that it provides a standard (uniform) set of licenses. That's why you can change the descriptions, but not the titles in (C)reators. The other shortcomings are duly noted and slated for fix in the next release. <br><br>(C)reators certainly needs to provide additional templates for Terms of Use. It was rightly slammed by beta testers in Canada for being to U.S. centric. Even though creators can edit the terms, they should have valid templates to begin with, depending upon their residence and needs. This blog also points out the need for better documentation! Thank you, Jonathan. We are learning from beta testers like you who are putting the app through its paces. Interested to hear from you and your readers if giving creators the ability to change the titles as well as the descriptions, outweighs the possible downside of creating confusion among the general public (potential licensees). One of the nice things about Creative Commons is that it provides a standard (uniform) set of licenses. That's why you can change the descriptions, but not the titles in (C)reators. The other shortcomings are duly noted and slated for fix in the next release.

(C)reators certainly needs to provide additional templates for Terms of Use. It was rightly slammed by beta testers in Canada for being to U.S. centric. Even though creators can edit the terms, they should have valid templates to begin with, depending upon their residence and needs. This blog also points out the need for better documentation! Thank you, Jonathan. We are learning from beta testers like you who are putting the app through its paces.

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/comment-page-1/#comment-128119 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:36:45 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1331#comment-128119 I would submit a different argument. That allowing the license terms to be changed as well as the description already sacrifices the benefit of a uniform license set.<br><br>One of the perks of CC is not only consistent naming, but that we know my CC-BY-SA license will be the same as every other CC-BY-SA license. With iCopyrght Creators, that isn't certain, one has to read the description and the license itself to be sure that they are following the license.<br><br>The benefit of the standard license is already lost. One already has to read the full license text so I don't see how allowing title changes can hurt, but rather, only simplify the process of interpreting iCopyright license.<br><br>As far as being too U.S.-centric goes, I agree. You need to include provisions for dealing with moral rights at least as that is something that exists almost everywhere else in the world.<br><br>However, I also understand that you had to start somewhere and the U.S. was the most logical place... I would submit a different argument. That allowing the license terms to be changed as well as the description already sacrifices the benefit of a uniform license set.

One of the perks of CC is not only consistent naming, but that we know my CC-BY-SA license will be the same as every other CC-BY-SA license. With iCopyrght Creators, that isn't certain, one has to read the description and the license itself to be sure that they are following the license.

The benefit of the standard license is already lost. One already has to read the full license text so I don't see how allowing title changes can hurt, but rather, only simplify the process of interpreting iCopyright license.

As far as being too U.S.-centric goes, I agree. You need to include provisions for dealing with moral rights at least as that is something that exists almost everywhere else in the world.

However, I also understand that you had to start somewhere and the U.S. was the most logical place…

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/comment-page-1/#comment-121619 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:36:45 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1331#comment-121619 I would submit a different argument. That allowing the license terms to be changed as well as the description already sacrifices the benefit of a uniform license set.<br><br>One of the perks of CC is not only consistent naming, but that we know my CC-BY-SA license will be the same as every other CC-BY-SA license. With iCopyrght Creators, that isn't certain, one has to read the description and the license itself to be sure that they are following the license.<br><br>The benefit of the standard license is already lost. One already has to read the full license text so I don't see how allowing title changes can hurt, but rather, only simplify the process of interpreting iCopyright license.<br><br>As far as being too U.S.-centric goes, I agree. You need to include provisions for dealing with moral rights at least as that is something that exists almost everywhere else in the world.<br><br>However, I also understand that you had to start somewhere and the U.S. was the most logical place... I would submit a different argument. That allowing the license terms to be changed as well as the description already sacrifices the benefit of a uniform license set.

One of the perks of CC is not only consistent naming, but that we know my CC-BY-SA license will be the same as every other CC-BY-SA license. With iCopyrght Creators, that isn’t certain, one has to read the description and the license itself to be sure that they are following the license.

The benefit of the standard license is already lost. One already has to read the full license text so I don’t see how allowing title changes can hurt, but rather, only simplify the process of interpreting iCopyright license.

As far as being too U.S.-centric goes, I agree. You need to include provisions for dealing with moral rights at least as that is something that exists almost everywhere else in the world.

However, I also understand that you had to start somewhere and the U.S. was the most logical place…

]]> By: Mike ODonnellhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/16/creating-a-custom-license/comment-page-1/#comment-121618 Mike ODonnell Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:56:39 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1331#comment-121618 Interested to hear from you and your readers if giving creators the ability to change the titles as well as the descriptions, outweighs the possible downside of creating confusion among the general public (potential licensees). One of the nice things about Creative Commons is that it provides a standard (uniform) set of licenses. That's why you can change the descriptions, but not the titles in (C)reators. The other shortcomings are duly noted and slated for fix in the next release. <br><br>(C)reators certainly needs to provide additional templates for Terms of Use. It was rightly slammed by beta testers in Canada for being to U.S. centric. Even though creators can edit the terms, they should have valid templates to begin with, depending upon their residence and needs. This blog also points out the need for better documentation! Thank you, Jonathan. We are learning from beta testers like you who are putting the app through its paces. Interested to hear from you and your readers if giving creators the ability to change the titles as well as the descriptions, outweighs the possible downside of creating confusion among the general public (potential licensees). One of the nice things about Creative Commons is that it provides a standard (uniform) set of licenses. That’s why you can change the descriptions, but not the titles in (C)reators. The other shortcomings are duly noted and slated for fix in the next release.

(C)reators certainly needs to provide additional templates for Terms of Use. It was rightly slammed by beta testers in Canada for being to U.S. centric. Even though creators can edit the terms, they should have valid templates to begin with, depending upon their residence and needs. This blog also points out the need for better documentation! Thank you, Jonathan. We are learning from beta testers like you who are putting the app through its paces.

]]>