Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Creative Commons Moving Images Winners

Posted by michael on from the kudos-and-salutations dept.

ArcRiley writes "The winners have been announced for the contest that Creative Commons launched last fall to deliver their ``some rights reserved'' message with a short video. Congratulations to Justin Cone, Sheryl Seibert, and Kuba & Alek Tarkowski for their winning videos!"

16 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Now to get this kind of stuff out in the public by lavalyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Too bad it's impossible considering how television is financed and broadcast. It'd be such an irony to see these videos (they're pretty good) broadcast over HDTV, with the no-copy flag on.

    --
    Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
    1. Re:Now to get this kind of stuff out in the public by iswm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's always the grassroots method. But then again, the media is just so controling now it's hard to get something such as a grassroots campaign to have any major influence on anything. Oh well.

      --
      Buckethead
  2. Marketing by gid13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that this will only matter when one of two things happens.
    1. Heavy promotion of creative commons-licensed material happens somehow.
    2. There is a severe crackdown on copyrighted file-sharing to the point that few or none feel comfortable doing it.

    I can't see 1 happening ever. 2, on the other hand, may be beginning. Personally, though, I think the better way to address this is just to allow copyrighted file-sharing.

  3. (CC) by ElliotLee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?

  4. Why did they have to pick share-alike? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a bit disappointed that two out of the three winners chose the "share-alike" attribute on their Creative Commons license.

    One of the strongest selling points the CC system has is that they're not the GPL... they offer variants that don't have the "viral clause" that requires those who use CC pieces to require that the whole work be licensed the same way. Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes. It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do. Flexablity is the whole point of CC.

    But maybe they took the flexability too far here. I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants. I would have suggested that all entries be under a CC license with Attribution and No Derivative Works... therefore allowing anybody who wants to spread the word of Creative Commons to republish the essentially PSA ad works without dictating what the publisher has to do with theirs.

    Afterall, the winners got some pretty cool stuff. They've been well paid for their work...

    1. Re:Why did they have to pick share-alike? by Daniel+Quinlan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm surprised you're upset about share-alike and not at all annoyed by the non-commercial restrictions on the movies. Given the large number of activities that can be interpreted as commercial, it seems like the far more restrictive attribute, one not even found in the GPL.

      I think the true genius of the GPL is that it helped move hordes of developers who were formerly in the "non-commercial shareware" camp into the far more productive and revolutionary "share-alike" camp (with no non-commercial attribute). That is, I believe a large number of developers who were not and would not be satisfied with a BSD-style license fell back on simplistic "non-commercial use" licenses and often did not share source code. The GPL gave them an outlet which at the end of the day is a very fair compromise and improves the commons much more.

      Finally, the thing that makes GNU, Linux, and other GPL projects (along with other open source licenses, to be sure) competitive with entirely proprietary projects is that commercial use is not restricted. When commercial use is disallowed, then companies (and their employees who often work on open source in their free time so they can apply it at work) have no incentive to invest time and energy in a project.

  5. Bring on the artists by nmoog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spend 10 minutes talking to an artist about OSS ideas and you have a OSS supporter. Art wants to be free. Software wants to be free. What a happy combination.

    Now, we need to get those converted artists and get them making linux a little easier on the eyes! Although, you'd want to be careful about which artists helped out....

    1. Re:Bring on the artists by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Spend 10 minutes talking to an artist about OSS ideas and you have a OSS supporter.
      Interesting that this is your experience with artists. My experience with musicians is just the opposite. They can't seem to think outside the Napster/Kazaa box. To them, free==piracy.

      --
      Find free books.
    2. Re:Bring on the artists by nmoog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, well there are musicians and there are musicians who are artists. You'd have to consider which type of musicians you have encountered in your experience.

      Metallica has spoken out about their views of free==piracy, where has Aphex Twin has spoken out and said he couldnt give a shit if you took his whole album and released it under a different name. Not all musicians are artists. (and to be fair, not all artists are any good :)

    3. Re:Bring on the artists by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The way to explain the Creative Commons system to a music artist is this: There are other artists out there who need source material to use in their works, but don't have the money to pay you right now. If you release your song under a CC Attribution and No Commercial Use license, fans can listen to you and movie makers might be able to include you in their early films. However, if that movie maker finally gets a hit and wants to make money with their early film that used you, they've got to come back to you and buy the rights then. If a radio station wants to play your song, they have to at least contact you to get your permission. It's giving other artists at the same level a way to audition for partners so that a collective work.

      Record labels angle to get their artists into movies not for the royalty money, but because being used in a hit movie can bring attention to an otherwise unknown artist. Artists perform for free on talk shows to promote themselves. If you're not bundled in with something somebody's already paying attention to, how's anybody going to notice you?

      Of course, the closed label-system presently shuns anybody who has already distributed their work by bypassing them because they fear the first recording star who launches into the "big time" without a label contract...

  6. Re:obligatory /. joke by mlinksva · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually Ibiblio is hosting the files on behalf of CC on behalf of the winners. The files are also uploaded to the Internet Archive here here and here. IA has offered to host any CC-licensed content free of charge.

  7. 'Fall' by zsau · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seasons describe weather conditions, and differ around the world. Time is described using words like 'Monday' or 'January', and are constant (at least in secular english-speaking contexts). I shouldn't need to know what continent you're on...

    --
    Look out!
  8. Open Media for Linux PDAs? by wehe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The CreativeCommons GetContent page contains a huge list of media. But what I am looking for is content, which fits to a Linux PDA like the SHARP Zaurus series. Are there eBooks, AudioBooks and movies, especially designed for small computers? BTW: Though there are many sites, which offer free mobile cell phone logos and ringtones, are there any logos and ringtones available under the Creative Common Licenses or the GPL?

  9. Re:obligatory /. joke by SW6 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Actually Ibiblio is hosting the files on behalf of CC on behalf of the winners. The files are also uploaded to the Internet Archive here here and here. IA has offered to host any CC-licensed content free of charge.

    Am I the only person to notice the irony of Open Source films on there being encoded in propietry formats sich as Windows Media and Quicktime?

  10. Re:obligatory /. joke by volsung · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, we made copies of our video in Ogg Theora format available, but Creative Commons chose not to link directly to the Mix Tape page.

  11. Re:Thanks for the Help by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    First you download Quicktime

    So.. mplayer just appears on your computer automagically? then you make sure you got up to date codecs

    No, QuickTime auto-updates. Can you say the same about mplayer? or do you have to go and download updates when a new version comes out?

    It is true that mplayer is powerful but like you say, it involves considerable knowhow. (and I don't know if things have got better but until recently basically involved compiling yourself whenever you wanted to install it, along with grabbing all required libraries. It's not simple). In this case I don't see how you can claim it is superiour to quicktime.

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling