We keep running into each other in many different places. Mike is writing some great stuff on remix culture and creative commons license. Mike isn't doing this particular mashup for fun, he's trying to move forward some debate about methods and issues with specific licensing uses for mashups. Read his comments here.
I'm trying to follow the threads of this conversation on a topic I don't fully understand. So here goes:
1. Mike writes this post Avoid YouTube if You Wanna Remix and Mashup
He suggests using an alternative video host where you can put a creatives commons license on our work and that you should set your content free:
Set your content free - don't use anything more restrictive than Creative Commons attribution (beware the sting in tail of share alike). Remember the aim is to have your content turn up in searches for media that is suitable for remix. The less control you try to impose on future derivatives of your work, the more likely it is to get remixed.
He goes to muse about the differences in CC licensings and impact on remix culture.
I'm beginning to wonder if Creative Commons offers TOO MUCH CHOICE. While it is crucial to move from the copyright default of 'all rights reserved' to the CC default of 'some rights reserved' there are problems whenever we try to control (and therefore restrict) future use of anything digital. I am not sure what the future of media licensed with options like 'no derivatives' or 'share alike' will be. It is just too risky for creative people to work with this stuff because sooner or later down the re-mix chain there is bound to be an unforseen future use that is prevented by these restrictions.
2. Stephen Downes replies here.
I use a 'non-commercial' license on my stuff because I don't want some company pulling a Blackboard on it - using it commercially then turning around and claiming it's their property. Note that commercial entities can use the content if the use is non-commercial, and nothing prevents me from allowing commercial uses in parallel (it's my own content, after all).
One person comments:
As you may know, Stephen, the non-commercial clause is considered harmful (google for it) - it is often quite difficult to decide whether some activity is commercial or not. Is teaching in a public school commercial activity? How about a private school? University? Study circle? Student creating a presentation in college?
3. Mike responses with this post.
I think Creative Commons has the potential to unlock exponential growth in the value of the Read/Write cluture, shaped by expressions in the new languages from digital multimedia ReMix and Mashups - but only if used skillfully.
WHY did I remove ‘Non Commercial’ from my default Creative Commons license?
Because I figure the RISK of my digital work never being discovered/re-mixed outweighs the RISK of being ripped-off (cheated out of money I deserve) or having some evil corporation ‘do a blackboard on me’.
I thought long and hard about my previous default ‘Attribution, Non Commercial’ license. The work I did for LearnDog seeks to publish and promote digital work by kids with a view to maximising the recognition for their work as it flows freely (freedom) through the read/write web without creating any impediments to them generating income (not free beer) in the future. My first inclination was to add ‘Share Alike’ to ‘Attribution, Non Commercial’ in what turned out to be a naive attempt to preserve this ‘pure and wholesome’ license regime in perpetuity. We very quickly discovered that ‘Share Alike’ was a barrier preventing work from being re-used in many interesting scenarios that we hadn’t predicted.
The point of this post is not to try and persuade you that I am right but to start some debate that will help us all sharpen our Creative Commons skills.
I did one more mashup of this one to help summarize this debate that I'm trying to understand.