Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Introduces Creative Commons Option
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.'"
Why not CC0? Why do they care to prevent that? Or is "public domain" already an option?
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
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.
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.
A machine-readable statement of license allows YouTube to introduce tools that automate this reuse.
So once you become uncontactable, do you want your work to become unusable?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.