I had this idea for creating a short and opinionated guide to how to choose your creative commons license. As I show in the notes, I've deliberately missed the CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA. The first two because their pointless unless you have specific uses and the third because it's toxic to collaboration.
IANAL, please consult your legal professional for further information on what licenses would be good for your work.
Nice flowchart. I never get tired of seeing these things.
Though, I don't understand why you have an issue with the BY-NC-SA license. I've always considered it to be one of the best middle grounds for collaborative artworks, at least when getting folks to transition from full copyrights towards CC. Suboptimal, yes... but "toxic"?
That being said, I agree that BY-NC and BY-ND are better left out, since they do seem to be quite useless in most cases and sometimes a bit confusing.
-- "These days, there's not much traditional constraint. I've got the engineer's most dangerous luxury: plenty." ~ Perry from Makers, by Cory Doctorow
I support and contribute to the #CameliaGirls project.
Well... for collaborative works, it's really hard to argue that the work is so important that every single collaborator must be barred from making money from the work. Which is what it amounts to.
It locks the work away in legal loops, the reason why NC has never been allowed in Open Source is because it causes legal issues when you have more than one creator.
I use CC-BY-NC as a business at because I don't want other businesses using my ideas for their profit, but others are permitted to make derivatives provided they attribute the original to me. Take a look at how my business operates and tell me if you can see a better license match.
--
The problem lies not with those who are mad and know it, but with those who are mad and don't know it.
<3 :icondsdfox: :iconesquiskwerl: <3
www.ubuntu.com - Ubuntu user www.pirateparty.org.uk member www.vulpinedesigns.co.uk
Yes, the main difficulty with creating a derivative of your work is that none of them can be used for profit either. So everyone must be a volunteer making their work for the fun of it.
Although your works seem so specialised and specific that they hardly need NC protection. An Share-alike license would stop most commercial exploitation and using a strong attribution requirements is pretty good too. You could release a handful of works and see what happens, I bet nothing will happen.
It depends I guess how you want people to use your work. If you just want them to mess about with the work, play and experiment and parody. Then use all rights reserved, because copyright doesn't apply to those kinds of uses very well anyway.
Could you please add more?
--
--
-- DoctorMO --
--
Though, I don't understand why you have an issue with the BY-NC-SA license. I've always considered it to be one of the best middle grounds for collaborative artworks, at least when getting folks to transition from full copyrights towards CC. Suboptimal, yes... but "toxic"?
That being said, I agree that BY-NC and BY-ND are better left out, since they do seem to be quite useless in most cases and sometimes a bit confusing.
--
"These days, there's not much traditional constraint. I've got the engineer's most dangerous luxury: plenty."
~ Perry from Makers, by Cory Doctorow
I support and contribute to the #CameliaGirls project.
It locks the work away in legal loops, the reason why NC has never been allowed in Open Source is because it causes legal issues when you have more than one creator.
--
-- DoctorMO --
--
-- DoctorMO --
Take a look at how my business operates and tell me if you can see a better license match.
--
The problem lies not with those who are mad and know it, but with those who are mad and don't know it.
<3 :icondsdfox: :iconesquiskwerl: <3
www.ubuntu.com - Ubuntu user
www.pirateparty.org.uk member
www.vulpinedesigns.co.uk
=^_^=
Although your works seem so specialised and specific that they hardly need NC protection. An Share-alike license would stop most commercial exploitation and using a strong attribution requirements is pretty good too. You could release a handful of works and see what happens, I bet nothing will happen.
It depends I guess how you want people to use your work. If you just want them to mess about with the work, play and experiment and parody. Then use all rights reserved, because copyright doesn't apply to those kinds of uses very well anyway.
--
-- DoctorMO --