Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Introduces Creative Commons Option

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-so-common dept.

geegel writes "YouTube has announced that it will introduce a Creative Commons license option and also provide remixing capabilities in its video editor. 'You can now access an ever-expanding library of Creative Commons videos to edit and incorporate into your own projects. ... You’ll also be able to mark any or all of your videos with the Creative Commons CC-BY license that lets others share and remix your work, so long as they give you credit.'"

34 comments

  1. Only CC-BY? by XanC · · Score: 2

    Why not CC0? Why do they care to prevent that? Or is "public domain" already an option?

    1. Re:Only CC-BY? by Captain.Abrecan · · Score: 1

      I don't see that license on the list, is there another list? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

    2. Re:Only CC-BY? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      The link is at the bottom of the page: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0

    3. Re:Only CC-BY? by XanC · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why they hide it. The bottom of the page contains this paragraph:

      We also provide tools that work in the "all rights granted" space of the public domain. Our CC0 tool allows licensors to waive all rights and place a work in the public domain, and our Public Domain Mark allows any web user to "mark" a work as being in the public domain.

    4. Re:Only CC-BY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the page you linked:

      We also provide tools that work in the “all rights granted” space of the public domain. Our CC0 tool allows licensors to waive all rights and place a work in the public domain, and our Public Domain Mark allows any web user to “mark” a work as being in the public domain.

      It doesn't have a pretty picture next to it, but it is down below all the other options.

    5. Re:Only CC-BY? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why not CC0? Why do they care to prevent that? Or is "public domain" already an option?

      CC-BY-NC-SA should also be an option.

      Frankly... I should be able to license my videos however I want, and tell Google whether I wish to allow other people to mix my videos.

      The burden of compliance with the CC-BY-NC would then be with the end user. The last thing I want is someone taking my content, putting it in a commercial video, and selling it to viewers to a fee, however.

    6. Re:Only CC-BY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you believe that display a video on YouTube is a non-commercial use of the video? Or do you expect Google to not show ads when you mark your video add CC-NC?

    7. Re:Only CC-BY? by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

      CC-NC Means that you can't use it commercially without the consent of the author. IANAL, but surely there could just be a waiver included that allowed Google to use the video for commercial use or something like that (aren't ToS counted as contracts?)

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
  2. Will people use this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, for videos which are already up, will people bother changing the status to creative commons?

  3. Could be cool. by softWare3ngineer · · Score: 2

    I could see this ending badly when a million people miss-use this licensed material and / or use someones copyrighted work and mark it CC

    1. Re:Could be cool. by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I don't see this happening in a more meaningful way than it already does on youtube, right now. Of course people are going to infringe on legitimate copyrights, and it's going to be ignored 95% of the time, until whoever holds the copyright files a DMCA takedown notice.

  4. what about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about CC-BY-SA?

    1. Re:what about by aBaldrich · · Score: 2

      YouTube partners get money from advertisement.
      They are clever: you can share as long as you let YT profit from it.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    2. Re:what about by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      CC-BY-SA doesn't mean you can't profit from it, just that derivatives have to also be shared under the same license. While I won't miss hearing Friday on Wikipedia, the WMF had a great repository of audio and video that YouTube could gave had access to had they gone with SA.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  5. Standard by Kazzerscout · · Score: 1

    I'm sticking with the Standard license. In the gaming community (I produce FPS commentaries) stealing - clips from montages in particular - is a major problem. Now although it appears this creative commons license makes sure credit given, I prefer editors to ask personally for content so I can ensure its going where I want it to.

    1. Re:Standard by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I prefer editors to ask personally for content so I can ensure its going where I want it to.

      Oh, that's nice of you to prefer that... As a FPS creator I would prefer it if you asked me permission before you devalued my product by overlaying your vapid comments over the clips you took from my games.

      I see that "fair use" is a one way street to you!

  6. How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have been re-posting and re-editing YouTube videos since for-ever. So only now can posters give viewers the option to legally do this?

    1. Re:How is this different? by tepples · · Score: 1

      A machine-readable statement of license allows YouTube to introduce tools that automate this reuse.

    2. Re:How is this different? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else predict the horror that will soon encompass YouTube? Begun the Rick-rolling wars have. ;)

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Fair use by tepples · · Score: 1

    And how will this mix with fair use? The use of someone else's non-free copyrighted work in a specific context is non-infringing based on a few factors, but use of the same work in another context might infringe.

    1. Re:Fair use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. You can use as much CC content as you want, and only have to consider fair use for the non-free copyrighted parts you're using.

    2. Re:Fair use by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And how will this mix with fair use?

      They should equip the video editor with a tool to let you mark start/end which time indexes on the video are "Fair use" and not CC licensed

  8. Uncontactable author by tepples · · Score: 2

    So once you become uncontactable, do you want your work to become unusable?

    1. Re:Uncontactable author by Thruen · · Score: 2

      Nah, just put him on the pending list like the big boys do.

  9. Or maybe not... by ATestR · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, pretty soon you won't be allowed to embed youtube videos.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:Or maybe not... by JeremyBanks · · Score: 1

      Don't spread FUD like it's fact. That's what someone is speculating the law might mean. I think that's a stupid way of interpreting the effect on YouTube; they already have the controls to prevent unauthorized playback/embedding, so anyone doing so is doing so legally. Herp.

  10. Your content, your choice of license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are you letting Youtube decide? The license is metadata. If Youtube doesn't support your choice of license in their drop-down, put the licensing information somewhere else.

    1. Re:Your content, your choice of license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video description field is a good start. And that's what I've been doing before they made the check box. Hopefully they can work it through legal and get us some more CC options to choose from. At least they're showing a little promise here.

  11. Excerpt out of context by tepples · · Score: 1

    I was talking about a CC-BY work that includes short excerpts of non-free parts under a claim of fair use, much as a CC-BY-SA article on Wikipedia or Nookipedia or Wookieepedia might include quotations from a non-free work. Consider work A, which is a remix of work B, which in turn is CC-BY but includes a short quotation from non-free work C under a fair use claim. In B's context, the excerpt is a fair use; out of context, it might not be, and unless A can make its own fair use claim, the excerpt from C might infringe.

  12. The studio recordings of Rick Astley are not CC-BY by tepples · · Score: 2

    Begun the Rick-rolling wars have.

    Not necessarily. The studio recordings of Rick Astley are not CC-BY and thus will not be available to users of the automated remix tools.

  13. Hit the nail on the head, there by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Yup! A major problem with copyright is that bits automatically don't have extra meta "license" bits.

    If everyone was super-paranoid about misusing information which might possibly be under copyright, Western civilization would grind to a screeching halt.

  14. In good time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am glad they at least provide something for the copyright scanning monster they've created.

    I am quite neutral on this subject however, I do not see it as too useful a thing (more symbolic to me)

  15. how sly by mshenrick · · Score: 1

    how sly, they only let you choose a license that allows commercial use, meaning I have to put that my videos are CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 in the description, and aren't tightly integrated with the editor etc.