"Bushfire" by Thingo. Please donate if you can.
Last month I wrote about people using Flickr images under Creative Commons licences because it’s the cool Web 2.0 thing to do, even though some CC licences prohibit commercial uses. The BBC has just been stung for doing just that.
This stuff isn’t complicated: if you don’t own it, don’t put it on your website unless you have permission directly from the owner or under the licence the owner has attached to the content. (If the owner hasn’t specified a licence, the material is automatically copyright pr
Maybe when Kate and her Silicon Federation have finished with their Entering the Mobile Ecosytem seminar, they need to hold one on what goes and what doesn’t in Web 2.0.
BBC story via jemimakiss.
Ignoring the legal area for a minute, it’s an interesting moral/ethical issue.
The CC movement is about creating a legal framework to surround the idea of content sharing within a community. This lets members of a community share each others work and not stress too much about the heavy hand of the law knocking on their door.
Traditionally ‘commercial entities’ aren’t part of these sharing communities.
I would suggest that the ‘no commercial’ element of CC is there not to stop people from using elements to make money – but rather to prevent ‘outsiders’ from abusing the resources of the community.
But what would people think if the big corporates starting giving back to these communities? What if they showed the communities that they weren’t just taking from them to turn a profit but in fact wanted to join in. Would the community welcome them as netizens (do people still use that word?)?
Maybe someone a great deal more elequoent and intelligent than myself can give some insight into this.