|
|
Post by macecurb on Oct 2, 2017 20:26:25 GMT
Hello everyone! So, as most of you might be aware, we've been having some preliminary discussions on the Discord about what license our episodes will be released under. So far, from the handful of people that have voiced their opinions, there's a general sense of wanting to use a Creative Commons - Attribution license for our scripts and episodes, with two other possible additions. I'm not going to bother re-explaining what all of these mean here, since both Wikipedia and Creative Commons themselves have better guides than I could write. So, with that in mind, there were two other options that we might want to consider: Sharealike and NonCommercial. We can have one, the other, or both on top of Attribution. Quick links to explanations: Creative Commons - Licensing TypesWikipedia - Creative Commons LicenseSo, thoughts? Want to suggest another option? Feel very free to voice your opinions in here. |
|
|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Oct 2, 2017 20:32:52 GMT
My thought is to use NonCommercial, so that others don't profit from our work.
Sharealike may discourage others from re-purposing our work for educational purposes, and I would like that to be easy to do.
The Attribution part ensures that we will get credit for writing it, and a link to our channel if possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Oct 2, 2017 22:48:02 GMT
Far as the classroom thing goes, it's worth bearing in mind that it would entirely be within our rights, regardless of exact license, to just allow anyone who asks to use our materials in a classroom setting.
Generally speaking we'll want to put our contact details in the description of our videos and hope teachers aren't jerks about these things - Which, if they're going out of their way to incorporate youtube videos into their curriculum, usually isn't the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by heresanidea on Oct 3, 2017 14:55:46 GMT
I think NC is necessary to stop people from simply selling whatever we do as is without adding any value.
But can we say like it's NC only for the direct work, any multiplicative (people using script to make their own video for example)
or divisive (people writing a summary of the script or their short summary of the video) works should be fine for commercial use too right?
Just that simple additive or subtractive (just adding a line or two after playing the whole video or simply cropping some part) is a no no.
How about we mention this alongside wherever we display the license?
|
|
14flash
Script Writer/Editor 
Posts: 100
|
Post by 14flash on Oct 4, 2017 2:22:42 GMT
But can we say like it's NC only for the direct work, any multiplicative (people using script to make their own video for example) or divisive (people writing a summary of the script or their short summary of the video) works should be fine for commercial use too right? This can still be done with NC, it's just that others will need our explicit permission to capitalize on our work. From the licensing types page on creative commons: Personally, I'm in favor of adding Share Alike to our license. I think that ideas should be available for everyone to experience regardless of who has them and who wants to hear them. By publishing under Creative Commons we're doing our part to keep ideas open, but we can also get others using our ideas to do so by using SA. |
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Oct 4, 2017 4:33:38 GMT
Much as I'd hate to crowd out a discussion topic by myself (I swear I won't respond again after this unless I feel it's truly valuable):
I really like the idea of adding Share Alike to the license. I'm largely with 14flash on this, I think it would be a worthwhile step in encouraging sharing and open discussion of our works and any derivative works.
After some thought on the matter, I'm actually in favour of adding NonCommercial as well. I don't like the idea of people being able to profit in some capacity off of a project that, far as I can tell, is not designed with profit in mind in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by heresanidea on Oct 4, 2017 6:13:04 GMT
Non commercial allows derivatives only as long as they're not used for making money.
But I think if a derivative is so ambitious that it's going to require funding and hence compensation and hence selling, NC doesn't seem to allow for that. And I don't think we would want to stop that. Share alike is also restrictive, if the derivative is really cool and unique, I don't see an issue if the creator doesn't want others to use it for free.
The only case where I wouldn't want others to make money off our work is if they simply cut off the end of video and added their own clip saying "like and subscribe *airhorn*" and then charge money for it.. that's not a derivative at all but technically it is.
So I'm fine having NC just for that case, as long as we make it clear that hey if you really want to, just contact us.
I don't find any case where I would want a share alike imposed. If the airhorn video is itself very restrictive or something, I don't really care.
And isn't this perspective shared by y'all too?
|
|
14flash
Script Writer/Editor
Posts: 100
|
Post by 14flash on Oct 4, 2017 13:36:30 GMT
NC and SA both have the clause "unless they get your permission first" so we can always provide exceptions to special cases. In that regard, I think we should be planning the license for the most general or common cases instead of the the outliers.
|
|
|
|
Post by heresanidea on Oct 4, 2017 14:32:22 GMT
Great then I'm good with NC.
And do we have an example where not having SA would be bad? I can't think of any.
|
|
ngnius
Channel Manager 
Discord bots are hard
Posts: 80
|
Post by ngnius on Oct 5, 2017 1:29:34 GMT
I think I was the major reason SA was even mentioned. The only reason it's useful is making sure people follow the rules of our license (instead of accidentally not reading the license of the original content because of all the iterations between their version and ours), but it's not really that useful otherwise. I used one for a program that I wrote because I didn't really want people restricting access to my code anymore than I already had.
|
|
