Tuesday, June 12, 2007

[Copyright] Protection & Creative Commons

Chez Pim's recent exposure of a blog thief who stole her work caused me to double check the terms of my own Creative Commons Licence. I found out it was out of date so I immediately updated it. You might like to check and do the same if necessary.

I was using 2.5 when the latest version is 3.0. If you are in the same boat, you'll note that Creative Commons Licence will warn you that you are not up to date with the following statement:

"A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however."

Relicensing existing works sounds like a lot of palaver to me, but maybe I have inadvertently found a way around it. At the bottom of every post I have written since January 7th, 2007, I have included the following statement:
© 2007 Sam Breach at "Becks & Posh", becksposhnosh.blogspot.com This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, or at the aforementioned url, the site you are looking at might be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact becks.posh.food.blog[AT]gmail[DOT]com to report any suspected violations. Thank you.

So in every post I have been linking to a piece of text in my 'about page' that clearly states the terms of my copyright. This way, if I update the terms of my licence on the about page (which I did) - it automatically updates the information on every post I have written which included my copyright terms. [I think I will change the wording to make it even clearer - ie instead of copyright infringement I should change to infringing my terms of copyright to be a little more clear].

If you want to be sure that your readers and potential users of your content are absolutely clear about your terms then the onus is on you to make it quite clear what those terms are and what any attributions should be and if you choose 'Share Alike' instead of 'No Derivative Works' (which is what I have), then potentially, other people can change your work to fit their own purposes. I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be, but it might be worthwhile making some consideration about which of these terms sounds more suitable to you as an individual.

This Post was written by Sam from Becks & Posh


Sarah said...

Thanks, Sam. I had started to put a small copyright line at the bottom of my posts, but you've inspired me to do a more detailed one, as well as add a Creative Commons License to my sidebar, to eliminate any ambiguity.

Kalyn said...

Sam, I think the way you've done this is very effective.

ClaireWalter said...

Please be aware that this info is applicablt to the UK. but laws are different in the US, where threre is, as far as I know, no such licence (which we would spell license).

Sam said...

thanks claire - I am still us-spelling challenged after 6+ years of living here so that could just be my fauult.

Here is the US version of the creative commons license.