My understanding of the Creative Commons licenses is that they are for providing permission to people to use something that they wouldn’t be able to otherwise, due to copyright or other issues. I don’t think the licenses are capable of limiting what people can do with something if it’s already the wild west, or do I have that wrong?
Oh I clicked the link, mate, and read through a couple links deep. What I’m saying is that my understanding of the license is that it allows permissions for a restricted item, but it does not restrict an item with open permissions. You know what I mean? You need to be a rights holder of something that is protected by copyright or the like, and then you can use this license to open permissions in certain ways, in this case that the item can be used for non-commercial means. So this wouldn’t work with stuff on Lemmy, right?
Yeah, that’s not how I understand it, mate. It’s a copyright license with “some rights reserved” instead of “all rights reserved”.
Also text can be restricted. Just because a newpapers publishes an article to public without a paywall, doesn’t mean the text is without copyright. Additionally, it’s not necessary to be a registered, commercial entity in order to be a rights holder. Somebody who makes a video of an event has the right and ability to sell it to news broadcasters. It doesn’t have to a freelancer or a TV studio - any private person may do so.
Of course, this all changes per jurisdiction and we’re on the internet, which makes things even more complicated.
You say it’s a copyright license, and I think that’s exactly where I’m struggling with this. My understanding is that this is a license for something copyrighted or otherwise protected. Copyright protects things from their creation. A copyright license provides certain people action that would otherwise be denied by copyright. So are you saying that your understanding is that what we write here on Lemmy is copyrighted, with authors holding the rights? That would be helpful to know because that has not been my understanding of copyright (and I know country plays an important role here), so that would be interesting to look into.
So are you saying that your understanding is that what we write here on Lemmy is copyrighted, with authors holding the rights?
Yes, that’s exactly it.
Services often do have:
you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, and display such user content
But, I don’t know how that plays out in different jurisdictions, which license those services redistribute the content as, and so on. That’s for the copyright lawyers to figure out.
My understanding of the Creative Commons licenses is that they are for providing permission to people to use something that they wouldn’t be able to otherwise, due to copyright or other issues. I don’t think the licenses are capable of limiting what people can do with something if it’s already the wild west, or do I have that wrong?
You’re free to click the link 🙂 The terms are stated quite clearly.
Oh I clicked the link, mate, and read through a couple links deep. What I’m saying is that my understanding of the license is that it allows permissions for a restricted item, but it does not restrict an item with open permissions. You know what I mean? You need to be a rights holder of something that is protected by copyright or the like, and then you can use this license to open permissions in certain ways, in this case that the item can be used for non-commercial means. So this wouldn’t work with stuff on Lemmy, right?
People have been telling them that for months.
Yeah, that’s not how I understand it, mate. It’s a copyright license with “some rights reserved” instead of “all rights reserved”.
Also text can be restricted. Just because a newpapers publishes an article to public without a paywall, doesn’t mean the text is without copyright. Additionally, it’s not necessary to be a registered, commercial entity in order to be a rights holder. Somebody who makes a video of an event has the right and ability to sell it to news broadcasters. It doesn’t have to a freelancer or a TV studio - any private person may do so.
Of course, this all changes per jurisdiction and we’re on the internet, which makes things even more complicated.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
You say it’s a copyright license, and I think that’s exactly where I’m struggling with this. My understanding is that this is a license for something copyrighted or otherwise protected. Copyright protects things from their creation. A copyright license provides certain people action that would otherwise be denied by copyright. So are you saying that your understanding is that what we write here on Lemmy is copyrighted, with authors holding the rights? That would be helpful to know because that has not been my understanding of copyright (and I know country plays an important role here), so that would be interesting to look into.
Yes, that’s exactly it.
Services often do have:
But, I don’t know how that plays out in different jurisdictions, which license those services redistribute the content as, and so on. That’s for the copyright lawyers to figure out.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Ah gotcha; that’s helpful. That’s not been my understanding of this content, so I’ll have to look into that, thanks.
I may be wrong as I’m not a lawyer, but that’s just my understanding 🙂 Who knows. Have a good day!
Likewise!
Dude you are living in a dream world. You have the same thought process as sovereign citizens.