In this article, you’ll learn how to use CC licenses correctly, safely, and to your advantage, and what you should be aware of in terms of copyright or “content claw.”
First find the right license
On the pages of many blogs, pictures and presentations you can find abbreviations such as "BY-SA" or "BY-NCND" for a number of years, with which the authors place the content they produce under a special license. The standard in the German-speaking world is simple: if the author (more precisely, the owner of the rights to a work) has not given his consent, texts, music, pictures or videos may be viewed and consumed. But without the permission of the owner of the rights, neither used in his own publications, nor built upon it a new work.
The CC layer model
That "Content-Klau" is not a cavalierdelikt, should now be known to every Webworker. And yet legal violations happen millions of times a day. The search engines make the use of content but also too easy. Quickly found a suitable image, copied to your own computer and integrated into your own publication. It is also quick to find instructions for quickly removing any references to the author contained in the metadata of graphics. This step, however, requires some kind of criminal energy, and the excuse of not knowing that an error is committed is thus no more. If she is it at all. As in many areas, ignorance also does not protect against punishment.
Music and film remain something special
Nevertheless, there are quite authors who are interested in the fact that their content is also used by others or are spread. In classical copyright and usage rights, the rights owner would have to grant these rights to others, preferably in writing. The licensing model Creative Commons (CC) simplifies this process. Markings and standardized legal texts place a work under the appropriate license, which ultimately allows the further use of the content while respecting various restrictions. No further inquiry is necessary. As far as the theory.
Right and get right
In general, there are only four computer modules that can be used within the framework of the CC license, but can also be combined
When choosing the license, it plays an important role in what you really want to achieve with this step. At first glance, the descriptions of the individual license modules seem very simple. The closer examination reveals however a few fall knits. Assigning the "NC" attribute to a plant forbids commercial use. Unfortunately, in the actual licensing conditions is not quite clear, which is now excluded. What is clear is that the attribute prevents a content from being used in an online shop. If the distribution is to be excluded via such channels, "NC" is the right choice.
On the other hand, it can be a question of whether the use of a work declaring with NC in a blog that contains, for example, context-dependent ads from Google or Amazon does not already run counter to the licenses. And blog writers who come across the relevant discussions on the Internet are likely to think twice about whether they place such content on the website. Thus the author restricts the distribution of his work. Perhaps stronger than he may have intended.
The licensing system developed by Creative Commons is a layered model. The basis is a fairly detailed legal text, in which the framework conditions are described in the same way as permitted and not allowed actions according to the letters of the license itself. For quicker orientation, the icons easy to understand for people are displayed on the page with the usage conditions or The content itself. The third layer finally classifies the contents in a machine-readable form. The objects are arranged by means of a simple link.
If the licensing is done through the Creative Commons site, you will get all the material and the link in the simplest way.
In contrast to the further use of presentations, pictures or texts, the topic of music always makes headlines and misunderstandings. However, these often result from the fact that in the case of a piece of music, a distinction must often be made between the author and the interpreter. Anyone who performs music at a trade fair, a party or more generally in the public space must generally pay fees to GEMA. And this can also be the case when the works of an artist who has used the CC license are played. If the GEMA has been entrusted by the copyright holder with the preservation of its interests, the fees will be due according to the statutes. In order to make possible consumers as easy as possible, music is best placed under BY-NC-ND.
Sound and legal: music and videos on the web
This covers the performance and dissemination, as long as they are not commercialized (ie by selling the individual titles). Portals that specialize in the compilation of such music titles also particularly welcome this license model.
It is even more complicated if a film is to be distributed under a CC license. For here, in the legal sense, there is not only one author, but a whole series of them. From the screenwriter to the director, to a possibly also involved editor, all are involved in the final product in a creative form.
CC content = Duplicate Content
The most delicate issue in the context of copyright and the "content claw" is undoubtedly the one after the enforcement of one's own interests. The "self-service store" with strange contents works so, and so, therefore, so splendid, because the content thieves mostly assume that the stolen one either does not notice the offense or will be afraid to go against the legal breach. So, if you limit the distribution of your content, you should be ready and willing to take action against violations.
It is important from the point of view of a licensee in this context that the letters of the license are to be taken seriously in case of doubt. If the author has the right to use his work in the same way as he or she has finished it, that means exactly the same, and the restriction can already include things that are a "little thing" from a lay point of view. However, if you are using a certain image segment from a larger photo, you may already change the work in such a way as to make a license violation.
Also interesting is
In principle, with CC licenses the obligation to name the originator. How this happens, the licensee can decide himself, unless the licenser has made an order here. In the case of images, which are published on platforms such as Flickr and others under the CC, the author is usually known only as a nickname. If there is no further specification of the author and no clarname is found under the respective profile page, this user name must be used.
On the safe side, licensees are always present when the licensor is located directly in the vicinity of the borrowed work. At least, there should be a list of sources in which the name of the work, its origin and the author are mentioned. In the case of a website, the summary of this information is conceivable in the context of the imprint. However, even this simple requirement may become a problem. This is always the case when several persons are jointly involved in a work, but the individual parts are not marked and can not be assigned completely (for example, in the case of an article written according to the Wiki principle)
Cautious, however, must also be all authors, who have already published a work elsewhere, but now under their own name under a CC license. A classic example: A bible is not expelled by a publisher. The author now takes his manuscript and makes it available to the public under a CC license. This may have a delicate legal effect, since this may involve the infringement of the publisher's rights. The fact that the work is no longer actively expelled or produced does not mean that the rights to the work have once again completely passed on to the authors. In this case, a form of formal remittance must be provided.
And what do you get from it?
Conclusion
If you publish content on the web under a CC license, you just want other users to use the documents, either unprocessed or modified. This also raises the question of what is to be considered as the most important aspect of search engine optimization, or rather, generally, the visibility in search engines of this licensing form. In the minds of most responsible persons, the ghost of the "Duplicate Content" is likely to emerge, which is supposed to lead automatically to the punishment by Google or another search engine. So do rights owners create disadvantages when they release their content for distribution?
The answer to this question is not easy, assuming that there is an abstraction for duplicate content in any case. And that is controversial. Undoubtedly, sites suspected of spreading spam, rank badly, or even fly out of the index of search engines. However, the spam suspicion must first be given. Google & Co., in connection with CC licenses, point out that the search robots are able to recognize such multiple content. In this case, it should also be possible to distinguish the actual source from the spreading addresses (even without the use of the machine-readable layer of the license).
There may, however, be overlaps and errors in this respect. In order to avoid such mistakes, you should consider the basic requirements of Creative Commons when marking your content. At least by the naming of the author required by the license conditions exists from the point of view of the search engines a strong criterion, in order to distinguish between the original and the alteration. And this more clearly than in the case of a simple (robbery) copy or unquestioned inclusion of the content on another Page would be the case.
How does it look, however, with the benefit from the point of view of the intended search engine optimization? "Comprehensible" is probably the most flattering evaluation for this. Or put it differently: If you want the license to be as easy and fast to find in the Internet, you should consider a different strategy and not the CC license. Because an SEO benefit is not available strictly speaking. Even if the author is mentioned in the distributed content, this link will be executed neutrally and will not affect the ranking. And in many cases, this may be better because, as a citizen, you have no influence on who uses your works or how their website is rated by the search engines.
However, there are other areas where rights owners are massively self-supporting when they distribute their content via CC. E-books are a trend, and many freelancers are trying to monetize part of the effort that comes from researching and creating web content by publishing an e-book on Amazon, iBooks, or other platforms. However, this is problematic if the content has also been distributed and published via the CC license. It usually does not take long before the author receives an e-mail from the platform operator, which informs him that the distribution of the book is initially set.
And under certain circumstances even worse: the payment of the royalties has been temporarily or completely suspended. Because the algorithms of the platforms also search the net for duplicate content, but do not assume an innocence presumption. Rather, it is assumed that the author of the e-book has then simply served the contents of others.
In similar problems, all authors who have their works watched by collecting societies such as the GEMA are caught up. Anyone who has been tormented by the numerous FAQs and the small print will find that a release under CC license and a concurrent perception of commercial interests by the GEMA can not be reconciled.
The right use of a CC license opens up great possibilities to increase the brand's own awareness or dissemination. In this way, musicians can distribute their works in a broader public, or expressly allow them to become the basis for further works. There is thus the option to open up new distribution channels. Designer or authors can also achieve the same benefit, provided they use a non-restrictive license. But if the work is spread and the desired benefit is achieved, it is on a whole different hand.
Even if the content is of a particular quality, the spread can still be avoided. Potential license holders are still cautious in this regard. The fault is primarily two. On the one hand lacking knowledge about the importance of the different models. While in professional magazines for designers, graphic artists, musicians and authors is reported more or less extensively and regularly about licensing and rights models, articles on the subject in media are rather the exception for a wider audience. What is allowed and what is forbidden? The second, much more serious obstacle lies in the lack of legal certainty.
The author is free to change the license for his work. A fact that creates uncertainty for the licensee. What if suddenly the commercial use is prohibited? When will the new regulations apply? How would a decision be decided if there were other limits at the time of licensing? The fact that these questions have long been clarified is far too little known. This is precisely why agencies and publishers like to use the traditional transmission of usage rights. This is because, by signature, it is stipulated that the work can be used during the term of the contract.
However, there may be changes on the Licensor's side which are not covered by the original license. Think of the already used example of the inclusion of context-sensitive ads, which might suddenly turn your website into a commercial offer in the licensing perspective. In this case, the previously integrated content must then be exchanged. This can become quite a complex matter.
CC has not solved the problems arising from the passing on and further use of creative content on the Internet. This could only be a comprehensive reform of the copyright itself. Visibility in search engines does not improve the licenses, but they do not hurt either. There are still enough stumbling blocks anyway, so that the use as well as the distribution of content of such origin have to be scrutinized.
No comments:
Post a Comment