PDA

View Full Version : As a Linux user do you Copyright your blog or websites?



RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 10:18 PM
I came across a known Linux users blog and found it pretty cool overall, most of his content was made up of things I have seen before here at ubuntuforums or at StumbleUpon and a host of other popular online websites.

I was a bit dismayed to find this notice at the bottom of his page:


Copyright © 2006 - 2007
I won't link his website to keep him anonymous.



This isn't a big deal but as a user of Linux and GNU Open Source there seems to be a philosophical divergence here.

On my websites; Distropedia for instance I have posted on the bottom of the page:



A CafeLinux.org Development.



http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
This website is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).

Distropedia is a member only Open Content Collaborative Writing Project.


http://cafelinux.org/distropedia/


(...along with a famous qoute.)

Admittedly I have to add this statement to my other websites, but I have no websites copyrighted.

I was just wondering as Linux users who own and admin websites, what do you do? Copyright, Copyleft, Creative Commons license, GPL or other?

Also, what do you think of people who copyright stuff that comes from the internet? What exactely is copyrighted? The way it is represented?

I can understand if users are copyrighting there customization of their website, that is different from a copyright of the content presented, if the content is clearly not original. This is not in question here. I know of many people who have spent many hours creating their website from scratch. This I completely understand. What I question is the copyright notice on a blog that is just a representation of information found online.

popch
September 1st, 2007, 10:30 PM
I was just wondering as Linux users who own and admin websites, what do you do? Copyright, Copyleft, Creative Commons license, GPL or other?

Also, what do you think of people who copyright stuff that comes from the internet? What exactely is copyrighted? The way it is represented?

I can understand if users are copyrighting there customization of their website, that is different from a copyright of the content presented, if the content is clearly not original. This is not in question here. I know of many people who have spent many hours creating their website from scratch. This I completely understand. What I question is the copyright notice on a blog that is just a representation of information found online.

The question is somewhat moot for me since the only web site I published so far was for the government, and this can not copyright most of its material, anyway.

Theoretically, I can conceive that you can copyright a blog. You can also copyright telephone directories. In that case, you do not copyright the individual entries but the compilation.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 10:32 PM
The question is somewhat moot for me since the only web site I published so far was for the government, and this can not copyright most of its material, anyway.

Theoretically, I can conceive that you can copyright a blog. You can also copyright telephone directories. In that case, you do not copyright the individual entries but the compilation.

The question isn't so much as wether you can copyright a blog but should you copyright a blog? Especially if the content is mostly on Linux and GNU Open Source. Again it just seems philosophically diveregent, but I could be wrong in thinking this?

popch
September 1st, 2007, 10:38 PM
The question isn't so much as wether you can copyright a blog but should you copyright a blog? Especially if the content is mostly on Linux and GNU Open Source. Again it just seems philosophically diveregent, but I could be wrong in thinking this?

I would not see any problem or inconsistency with a copyrighted blog.

After all, you can publish books on using software. The books are copyrighted and the software is not. Also, you can publish 'management letters' giving advice on what software to use in which context. Again, the management letter can be copyrighted even when giving advice on software which is not. I will stop the list here before you stop me.

Ender Black
September 1st, 2007, 10:41 PM
I believe a copyright is implicit. That means that it is copyrighted the moment it is published. To "uncopyright" the material would require you to designate it Creative Commons.

nonewmsgs
September 1st, 2007, 10:42 PM
is it really copywritten? would't it require more than the unicode circled with a year?

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 10:44 PM
I would not see any problem or inconsistency with a copyrighted blog.

After all, you can publish books on using software. The books are copyrighted and the software is not. Also, you can publish 'management letters' giving advice on what software to use in which context. Again, the management letter can be copyrighted even when giving advice on software which is not. I will stop the list here before you stop me.

Thanks for the response, I don't have a problem with a copyrighted blog. Your points are all good and valid, thanks for the 411.


I believe a copyright is implicit. That means that it is copyrighted the moment it is published. To "uncopyright" the material would require you to designate it Creative Commons.

I prefer the latter, Creative Commons designation.

Bachstelze
September 1st, 2007, 10:46 PM
is it really copywritten? would't it require more than the unicode circled with a year?

It requires absolutely nothing. Once you publish a work, unless you explicitly release it in the public domain, it is copyrighted. And by the way, Free Software is copyrighted, too (unless it's in the PD, which is very rare), and a work released under a CC license is copyrighted as well. You grant certain rights but not all rights.

And about my writings, they're CC-BY. I don't care what people do with my work, as long as they don't pass it off as their own.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 10:46 PM
is it really copywritten? would't it require more than the unicode circled with a year?

I think that the only thing you really need to copyright material is the Unicode Circled:



©...but I am not sure?


EDIT:

HymnToLife's post may clarify things a bit:


It requires absolutely nothing. Once you publish a work, unless you explicitly release it in the public domain, it is copyrighted. And by the way, Free Software is copyrighted, too (unless it's in the PD, which is very rare).

And about my writings, they're CC-BY.

Thanks for the input. ;)

popch
September 1st, 2007, 10:46 PM
thanks for the 411.

You're welcome. Who or what is a 411?

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 10:50 PM
You're welcome. Who or what is a 411?

In the USA 411 is used to dial for information.

411=information

popch
September 1st, 2007, 10:52 PM
In the USA 411 is used to dial for information.

411=information

Oh? - Ah!

Bachstelze
September 1st, 2007, 10:53 PM
More precisely, a copyright notice was required in the US until 1989, when the US enacted the Berne Convention, which makes it optional. More info here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Copyright_notices

saulgoode
September 1st, 2007, 10:56 PM
Once you publish a work, unless you explicitly release it in the public domain, it is copyrighted. And by the way, Free Software is copyrighted, too (unless it's in the PD, which is very rare), and a work released under a CC license is copyrighted as well. You grant certain rights but not all rights.

You have the right idea, however, there is no legal mechanism (at least in the U.S., probably in most countries) to actually place something in the public domain (other than for government agencies). You can license people to use it with absolutely no restrictions but you are the copyright holder.

This makes sense because you could otherwise relieve yourself of all liability for your material if you could release it into the public domain. Only works for which copyright has expired and works published by the government are in the public domain.

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

squidmaster
September 1st, 2007, 11:00 PM
nani ka?
I see no reason to copy right my blog / personal website
if anything I include "Right to Copy" :P
I think that's pretty sly, because I encourage people to learn and tinker, that's what open source is all about baby!

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:00 PM
More precisely, a copyright notice was required in the US until 1989, when the US enacted the Berne Convention, which makes it optional. More info here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Copyright_notices

Nice usefull link:



But in 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works). As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic.[1] (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html) However, notice of copyright (using these marks) does have consequences in terms of allowable damages in an infringement lawsuit in some places. It is important to understand that absence of the copyright symbol does not mean that the work is not covered by copyright. The work once created from originality through 'mental labor' is instantaneously considered copyrighted to that person. Thus, a natural copyright exists from the time a work is invented or created regardless of whether a work has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Since all countries have separate copyright laws, there is no such thing as an International Copyright. The Berne Convention, however, makes the copyright automatic as well. Should Copyright Infringement litigation ensue, registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is highly suggested if one is to prevail in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Copyright_notices

Henaro
September 1st, 2007, 11:00 PM
I never really understood copy rights. I would think that it would require more than just throwing some dates and the unicode ©. On my website I have this at the bottom:


No Copyright © 1998-2007
The dates are random.

I do think that it is okay to copyright articles on GNU or linux. I don't see why that is a problem. They are copyrighting their own work. ;)

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:03 PM
nani ka?
I see no reason to copy right my blog / personal website
if anything I include "Right to Copy" :P
I think that's pretty sly, because I encourage people to learn and tinker, that's what open source is all about baby!



I never really understood copy rights. I would think that it would require more than just throwing some dates and the unicode ©. On my website I have this at the bottom:

No Copyright © 1998-2007The dates are random.

I do think that it is okay to copyright articles on GNU or linux. I don't see why that is a problem. They are copyrighting their own work. ;) You should both select and designate an official Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/). If you really want people to feel comfortable with the right to copy, mix and reuse stuff from your blogs and websites.

angryfirelord
September 1st, 2007, 11:08 PM
I don't have any issue with copyrights. If someone wants to have credit for their work, then by all means they copyright it. The GPL is "copyleft", but a fair amount of GNU works are copyrighted.

Patents, however, are another story. :-D

StueyB
September 1st, 2007, 11:10 PM
I copyrighted my "main" site due the fact that it cost over $5000 to create, including databases. It took me, personally, months of data entry. If my database werent copyrighted, id have no advantage over the competition. I'd be giving away all my hard earned information.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:10 PM
Patents, however, are another story. :-D

and Trademarks.

Wiebelhaus
September 1st, 2007, 11:10 PM
I hope the ubuntugeek dudes don't , I've jacked all kinds of stuff from there.

thanks ubuntu geek , it just means you melt faces.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:13 PM
I copyrighted my "main" site due the fact that it cost over $5000 to create, including databases. It took me, personally, months of data entry. If my database werent copyrighted, id have no advantage over the competition. I'd be giving away all my hard earned information.

I support anybody who chooses to copyright their website. That is completely your choice and whatever choice you make is the right one.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:14 PM
I hope the ubuntugeek dudes don't , I've jacked all kinds of stuff from there.

thanks ubuntu geek , it just means you melt faces.

Good question what is the official stance of ubuntuforums.org on their content?

Bachstelze
September 1st, 2007, 11:14 PM
The GPL is "copyleft", but a fair amount of GNU works are copyrighted.

All of them are ! The fact that it is Free Software does not mean it's not copyrighted. You grant certain rights, not all rights.


Good question what is the official stance of ubuntuforums.org on their content?

The Berne Convention applis here too so the copyright for anything written on the forums is hold by it's author. I guess the same goes for all the contents, forums descriptions and such, since there is no mention of the contrary.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:18 PM
Good question what is the official stance of ubuntuforums.org on their content?

I have found the answer:



Public forum data is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/).
Last Updated 6/14/2007 - 4:35PM ESThttp://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy

matthewdhandley
September 1st, 2007, 11:19 PM
This conversation is moot. Everything you create is "copyrighted" at the instant you create it, whether you choose to do so or not. Statements like "I don't copyright my website" are false, because the simple act of creating it did that for you. And there is no way to ever give away or get rid of your copyright. As some people have already said, you can grant some rights, but you always own the copyright to the work, be it software, a blog, etc.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:28 PM
This conversation is moot. Everything you create is "copyrighted" at the instant you create it, whether you choose to do so or not. Statements like "I don't copyright my website" are false, because the simple act of creating it did that for you. And there is no way to ever give away or get rid of your copyright. As some people have already said, you can grant some rights, but you always own the copyright to the work, be it software, a blog, etc.Good Point, rights to your material should be granted via a Creative Commons License. (http://creativecommons.org/)

Also the limitations of any copyright should be acknowledged:


However, notice of copyright (using these marks) does have consequences in terms of allowable damages in an infringement lawsuit in some places. It is important to understand that absence of the copyright symbol does not mean that the work is not covered by copyright. The work once created from originality through 'mental labor' is instantaneously considered copyrighted to that person. Thus, a natural copyright exists from the time a work is invented or created regardless of whether a work has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Since all countries have separate copyright laws, there is no such thing as an International Copyright. The Berne Convention, however, makes the copyright automatic as well. Should Copyright Infringement litigation ensue, registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is highly suggested if one is to prevail in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...yright_notices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Copyright_notices)

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:35 PM
Further more some things can not be protected by copyright:


What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

raublekick
September 1st, 2007, 11:38 PM
This conversation is moot. Everything you create is "copyrighted" at the instant you create it, whether you choose to do so or not. Statements like "I don't copyright my website" are false, because the simple act of creating it did that for you. And there is no way to ever give away or get rid of your copyright. As some people have already said, you can grant some rights, but you always own the copyright to the work, be it software, a blog, etc.

Everything you and HymnToLife have said is good, but I notice a big gap!

It doesn't matter if you point out your copyright or not! It only matters if you act on it. As far as I know, the only person who can act on a copyright infringement is the copyright holder. This is good.

Copyrighting a blog (which we've seen is moot anyways) gives the blog author the power to let fellow bloggers repost his / her content (with credit given) and bring the hammer down on a big new corp posting the blog as an article of their own (even if credited).

Copyrights have been given a bad rap lately, because large corporations (I won't mention names...) are abusing them. But what about us little guys? Copyrights protect us from the big corporations abusing our content.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:46 PM
More information about Copyrights:


How to Secure a Copyright

Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#note).) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr).”
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci


International Copyright Protection

There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author’s writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. For further information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations with the United States, request Circular 38a (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html), International Copyright Relations of the United States.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci



Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/). Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci


Registration Procedures

Original Registration

To register a work, send the following three elements in the same envelope or package to:
Library of Congress
Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000
A properly completed application form.
A nonrefundable filing fee* (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#note) for each application.
The deposit requirements vary in particular situations. The general requirements follow. Also note the information under “Special Deposit Requirements (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#sdr).”
If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition.
If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies or phonorecords of the work as first published.
If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy or phonorecord of the work as first published.
If sending multiple works, all applications, deposits, and fees should be sent in the same package. If possible, applications should be attached to the appropriate deposit. Whenever possible, number each package (e.g., 1 of 3, 2 of 4) to facilitate processing. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

...of course this is only valid for the USA.

The point is while Copyright is automatic, registration is benefical in a court of law, while it must be remembered there is NO international copyright law, therefore there is no world wide protection.

If you want to give rights you should do so via Creative Commons License.

Bachstelze
September 1st, 2007, 11:48 PM
Copyrighting a blog (which we've seen is moot anyways) gives the blog author the power to let fellow bloggers repost his / her content (with credit given) and bring the hammer down on a big new corp posting the blog as an article of their own (even if credited).



True but it's a bit uncomfortable. I mean, if some dude writes something and puts no notice about which licence it is released under, how am I to know whether or not I'm allowed to reproduce it, and under which conditions ? How can I be sure than he will not attack me for copyright violation just because he doesn't like me and leave others alone ? No offense meant but your way of thinking - "Attack companies but not other bloggers." - is just as bad to me as "Attack Jews but not Muslims." (or the other way around).

Nothing irritates me more than a piece of unlicenced text, code, or whatever. That's why I always licence my stuff (BSD for code, CC Attributions for text), even the tiniest one, so that people know exactly what they may or may not do with it.

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:49 PM
Here is some helpful information about the Creative Commons License:


Offering your work under a Creative Commons license does not mean giving up your copyright. It means offering some of your rights to any member of the public but only on certain conditions.
What conditions? You can find an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here (http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses). All of our licenses require that you give attribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
http://creativecommons.org/images/icons/attrib.gif Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request.
Example: Jane publishes her photograph with an Attribution license, because she wants the world to use her pictures provided they give her credit. Bob finds her photograph online and wants to display it on the front page of his website. Bob puts Jane’s picture on his site, and clearly indicates Jane’s authorship.
Our core licensing suite will also let you mix and match conditions from the list of options below. There are a total of six Creative Commons licenses to choose from our core licensing suite.
http://creativecommons.org/images/icons/noncomm.gif Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only
Examples: Gus publishes his photograph on his website with a Noncommercial license. Camille prints Gus’ photograph. Camille is not allowed to sell the print photograph without Gus’s permission.
http://creativecommons.org/images/icons/nomod.gif No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
Example: Sara licenses a recording of her song with a No Derivative Works license. Joe would like to cut Sara’s track and mix it with his own to produce an entirely new song. Joe cannot do this without Sara’s permission (unless his song amounts to fair use).
http://creativecommons.org/icon/sa/standard.gif Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
Note: A license cannot feature both the Share Alike and No Derivative Works options. The Share Alike requirement applies only to derivative works.
Example: Gus’s online photo is licensed under the Noncommercial and Share Alike terms. Camille is an amateur collage artist, and she takes Gus’s photo and puts it into one of her collages. This Share Alike language requires Camille to make her collage available on a Noncommercial plus Share Alike license. It makes her offer her work back to the world on the same terms Gus gave her.
More examples are available on our examples page (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/examples/). Also note that every license carries with it a full set of other rights (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/fullrights/) in addition to the allowances specifically made here.
Taking a License

When you’ve made your choices, you’ll get the appropriate license expressed in three ways:
Commons Deed. A simple, plain-language summary of the license, complete
with the relevant icons.
Legal Code. The fine print that you need to be sure the license will stand up in court.
Digital Code. A machine-readable translation of the license that helps search engines and other applications identify your work by its terms of use.Using a License

You should then include a Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved” button on your site, near your work. Help and tips on doing this are covered here (http://creativecommons.org/technology/usingmarkup). This button will link back to the Commons Deed, so that the world can be notified of the license terms. If you find that your license is being violated, you may have grounds to sue under copyright infringement.
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

RAV TUX
September 1st, 2007, 11:55 PM
I was just wondering as Linux users who own and admin websites, what do you do? Copyright, Copyleft, Creative Commons license, GPL or other?

Also, what do you think of people who copyright stuff that comes from the internet? What exactely is copyrighted? The way it is represented?






I must remind some posters there is no controversary presented here...

I mainly asked Linux users what do you choose?

some choose a Creative Commons License like myself and ubuntuforums.org and HymnToLife. Others choose to copyright their work and that is fine.

I also asked what do you think of people who copyright content from the internet? While the USA copyright law specifically says that material: "consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship" is not protected by copyright. One poster here pointed out the compilation may be.


What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

Actually there is a lot that is not protected by copyright, regardless if you put a copyright notice on your blog or not.

Many blogs I have seen either are made up of common property, which by USA law is not protected by copyright or they are made up of copyrighted material that they did not get promission for, again this would not be protected by copyright law. More importantly while copyright is automatic for original work it does not gaurentee you protection or retribution in a US court of law. While this is a international forum, it should be noted there is NO international copyright law. So while the Berne Convention stipulates automatic copyright; to it's protection it does nothing to bring you any real protection in the world wide arena.

Also, if you want to grant rights, as HymnToLife pointed out then you should spell it out specifically. I will again point out the best way to point it out is to select and publish a Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/) with your original work.

gnomeuser
September 2nd, 2007, 02:24 AM
holy crap it turns out I do.. apparently my blog software or theme (wordpress) by default adds a copyright notice to every page.

Completely unintentional, but I'm pretty sure people don't care at all, it's not like my blog has extremely high traffic or in anyway to my knowledge have been quoted outside of fair use guidelines.

I took the time to figure out where in the php (and dear lord is php ugly) that was set and changed it

The GNOME Commentary (http://lovesunix.net/blog/) now under a CC Attribution 3.0 license, just for the sake of it.

Jucato
September 2nd, 2007, 03:27 AM
Interesting information, although I must say I was a bit amused at first post. It gave me the impression that "copyright" was seen as a negative thing or that free software isn't copyrighted because it's GPL'ed or that these licenses contradict copyrights.

I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand, the GPL is a form of copyleft, that is, using copyright law to give more freedom to other people. Copyright basically says that you are the owner and you give certain rights or restrictions to copy or use the material. Copyleft says that you are the owner and you are using that ownership to grant more freedom to use and copy. So it's still copyrighted, but in an ingenious way. The license gives the legal framework for making this type of copyleft work.

But that's for software, and sometimes, documentation (GNU FDL). However, that doesn't neatly apply to other forms of work, such as articles, opinions, and works fo art. Even Stallman knows this as reflected at the bottom part of the GNU licenses page ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ ).

I believe that copyrighting and licensing your content, be it blog, artwork, etc., is a way to protect not only yourself, but also others who wish to copy and improve on your material. As for me, I'm still deciding on a license to use for my site. :P

RAV TUX
September 2nd, 2007, 04:08 AM
Interesting information, although I must say I was a bit amused at first post. It gave me the impression that "copyright" was seen as a negative thing or that free software isn't copyrighted because it's GPL'ed or that these licenses contradict copyrights.

I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand, the GPL is a form of copyleft, that is, using copyright law to give more freedom to other people. Copyright basically says that you are the owner and you give certain rights or restrictions to copy or use the material. Copyleft says that you are the owner and you are using that ownership to grant more freedom to use and copy. So it's still copyrighted, but in an ingenious way. The license gives the legal framework for making this type of copyleft work.

But that's for software, and sometimes, documentation (GNU FDL). However, that doesn't neatly apply to other forms of work, such as articles, opinions, and works fo art. Even Stallman knows this as reflected at the bottom part of the GNU licenses page ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ ).

I believe that copyrighting and licensing your content, be it blog, artwork, etc., is a way to protect not only yourself, but also others who wish to copy and improve on your material. As for me, I'm still deciding on a license to use for my site. :PJucato I have to say your website looks awesome!

I wondered why you took your multiply blog down, now I understand why. Outstanding Website!

I noticed you do have a Copyright at the bottom of each web page. As you stated and as I clearly evolved to understanding in this thread, everything that you publish that is original is automatically copyrighted.

I would suggest that you strongly consinder a Creative Commons License. The Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) that we use on Distropedia is nice.

The choice is ultimately yours, but without a Creative Commons License as HymnToLife pointed out, ordinary users like myself who may want to qoute and attribute your website have no way of knowing if you are cool with this.

Good to see your post btw!

raublekick
September 2nd, 2007, 04:27 AM
True but it's a bit uncomfortable. I mean, if some dude writes something and puts no notice about which licence it is released under, how am I to know whether or not I'm allowed to reproduce it, and under which conditions ? How can I be sure than he will not attack me for copyright violation just because he doesn't like me and leave others alone ? No offense meant but your way of thinking - "Attack companies but not other bloggers." - is just as bad to me as "Attack Jews but not Muslims." (or the other way around).

Nothing irritates me more than a piece of unlicenced text, code, or whatever. That's why I always licence my stuff (BSD for code, CC Attributions for text), even the tiniest one, so that people know exactly what they may or may not do with it.

Oh yes, I agree it isn't always the best, but it's still there as an option. But the bloggers vs. news media thing was more about free vs. paid content. I see your point though and it is well met. I'm no expert on the subject, so I don't mean for my post to be taken as expert opinion :)

acowboydave
September 2nd, 2007, 05:15 AM
I just published my website it deals with wallpaper I designed. I have on the last page, copyrighted. But on the first page, quote: This is a free site to use. Which it was meant for and is. I was led to believe it is common practice to copyright any work.

RAV TUX
September 2nd, 2007, 05:45 AM
I just published my website it deals with wallpaper I designed. I have on the last page, copyrighted. But on the first page, quote: This is a free site to use. Which it was meant for and is. I was led to believe it is common practice to copyright any work.keep in mind that your original creations are always copyrighted whether you state it or not. What is important is that if you want to make it open for others to use you need to let people know under a Creative Commons License.

Altarbo
September 2nd, 2007, 06:30 AM
Hello,

It's nice to have anything licensed under an open source license, but I don't think it would work too well for blogs. The author of a blog is probably going to be commenting on a lot of things that are trademarked or copyrighted. Fair use (this is my understanding) says that you can refer to and quote a copyrighted work (that you have no rights to) whenever you are talking about it. So it's perfectly legal for the blog's author to use copyrighted material on his page, that he would not be able to relicense to his visitors.

All that would be hard to sum up clearly in a few sentences. And if the author accidentally gives his visitors rights to something he doesn't have, then the author might get into legal trouble. For something like a blog where you are using material you don't have the copyright to, it's probably safest to just reserved rights until someone asks. Then you can explain in detail to that specific person what rights they can have for whatever specific material they need to use.

I don't and haven't administered any serious web sites. The closest, was when I was I kid, I had this (poorly made) website about an anime that I was into. The copyright tag at the bottom of my pages usually had a disclaimer saying who owned the copyrights of the anime and that I wasn't affiliated with them. I didn't know much about copyright then, though. Just wanted to not get my parents sued.

Also: Distropedia is really nice. Hadn't seen it before; browsing it right now.

Any individual receiving this post has the right to use it, for any purpose whatsover; trademarks and any other intellectual property rights are reserved unless otherwise noted,
Robert Jones

RAV TUX
September 2nd, 2007, 06:48 AM
Hello,

It's nice to have anything licensed under an open source license, but I don't think it would work too well for blogs. The author of a blog is probably going to be commenting on a lot of things that are trademarked or copyrighted. Fair use (this is my understanding) says that you can refer to and quote a copyrighted work (that you have no rights to) whenever you are talking about it. So it's perfectly legal for the blog's author to use copyrighted material on his page, that he would not be able to relicense to his visitors.

All that would be hard to sum up clearly in a few sentences. And if the author accidentally gives his visitors rights to something he doesn't have, then the author might get into legal trouble. For something like a blog where you are using material you don't have the copyright to, it's probably safest to just reserved rights until someone asks. Then you can explain in detail to that specific person what rights they can have for whatever specific material they need to use.

I don't and haven't administered any serious web sites. The closest, was when I was I kid, I had this (poorly made) website about an anime that I was into. The copyright tag at the bottom of my pages usually had a disclaimer saying who owned the copyrights of the anime and that I wasn't affiliated with them. I didn't know much about copyright then, though. Just wanted to not get my parents sued.

Also: Distropedia is really nice. Hadn't seen it before; browsing it right now.

Any individual receiving this post has the right to use it, for any purpose whatsover; trademarks and any other intellectual property rights are reserved unless otherwise noted,
Robert Jones

As a fellow Distropedian I Thank You! for the compliment about Distropedia. Aubrey and many other Distropedians have and are working hard to make Distropedia your first choice for all your distro needs. Please feel free to jump right in and join. We had trouble recently with SPAMMERS so all new members must have admin approval. Just e-mail Aubrey or myself after you have signed up if we don't enable your account right away.

About the blogs perhaps a note on the bottom of the page like this:





http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Except where otherwise noted (http://creativecommons.org/policies#license), content on this site is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

http://creativecommons.org/

This is the same note on the bottom of the Creative Commons Website.

Altarbo
September 2nd, 2007, 07:28 AM
As a fellow Distropedian I Thank You! for the compliment about Distropedia. Aubrey and many other Distropedians have and are working hard to make Distropedia your first choice for all your distro needs. Please feel free to jump right in and join. We had trouble recently with SPAMMERS so all new members must have admin approval. Just e-mail Aubrey or myself after you have signed up if we don't enable your account right away.Quite welcome. I can empathize with the spam problem, and if I get some spare time and less sporadic internet access, I'll try and write something for it.


About the blogs perhaps a note on the bottom of the page like this:




http://creativecommons.org/

This is the same note on the bottom of the Creative Commons Website.

That should be alright. A couple things to be conscious of though are use of quoted material and use of photographs.

If you were going to do this with a blog you should make sure that all quoted material is quoted in the same way (always use quotes, use the same html tags) so there's no confusion, have a section under the "noted" link explaining the license for quoted material, and have a section under the "noted" link explaining the license for photographs.

For example: the CreativeCommons.org site has a page on an art exhibit (http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart) where it's not really made clear if the photograph of the artwork is fair use or if it's actually being licensed to the viewers. If you add sections that deal with quoted material and photographs to your exception list (something not done on the Creative Commons site, probably because so much of the material is original) you shouldn't be liable for anyone who fails to read or understand it.

RAV TUX
September 2nd, 2007, 08:56 AM
Quite welcome. I can empathize with the spam problem, and if I get some spare time and less sporadic internet access, I'll try and write something for it.

That should be alright. A couple things to be conscious of though are use of quoted material and use of photographs.

If you were going to do this with a blog you should make sure that all quoted material is quoted in the same way (always use quotes, use the same html tags) so there's no confusion, have a section under the "noted" link explaining the license for quoted material, and have a section under the "noted" link explaining the license for photographs.

For example: the CreativeCommons.org site has a page on an art exhibit (http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart) where it's not really made clear if the photograph of the artwork is fair use or if it's actually being licensed to the viewers. If you add sections that deal with quoted material and photographs to your exception list (something not done on the Creative Commons site, probably because so much of the material is original) you shouldn't be liable for anyone who fails to read or understand it.

Good points over all, and a practice to follow if needed.

One question comes to mind; what if you using a screenshot and your wallpaper is set to a potentially copyrighted image?

Jucato
September 2nd, 2007, 10:11 AM
Thanks for the compliments, RAV. I'm actually planning to sort of redo the design of my site from scratch (right now it's derived from a GPL'ed design) and revive my other social networking sites as well.

I do plan on licensing my content, but I still have to see my options. My site will be containing lots of different types of contents, from blogs to articles to documentation to artwork.

@Altarbo: True. Most of the open source licenses are oriented towards software, not literary works and other things. That's why efforts such as Creative Commons are quite good. I think there are other such licenses out there that would fit this category of work more. But perhaps we should not call them "open source" but rather "open content"?

happy-and-lost
September 2nd, 2007, 10:15 AM
Nah, nothing I post on the internet is worth other people stealing ;)

I do CC some of my work on dA, though... just in case...

Altarbo
September 10th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Good points over all, and a practice to follow if needed.

One question comes to mind; what if you using a screenshot and your wallpaper is set to a potentially copyrighted image?That should qualify as fair use. If the image was released under any kind of open source license you could also release the screenshot under that license, but you wouldn't be obligated to. If you knew who created the image, you could also try and get their permission to release under a different license.


[ . . . ]

@Altarbo: True. Most of the open source licenses are oriented towards software, not literary works and other things. That's why efforts such as Creative Commons are quite good. I think there are other such licenses out there that would fit this category of work more. But perhaps we should not call them "open source" but rather "open content"?My main thing, was that a blog's author might not want to be responsible for giving away rights he didn't have in the first place. The idea of making a separate page linked to each copyright notice to deal with exceptions, seems like a good plan though.

Creative Commons making licenses that apply to written work is cool, but I think I'm gonna call it open source even though there is no source code. FLOSOCS would take way too long to write.:)

Pekkalainen
September 10th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Content can of course be copyrighted. But copyrighting the code seems kinda weird to me. Like copyrighting air or something.

iPower
September 10th, 2007, 09:54 PM
in sweden you don't even have to add a © to have the material copyrighted (what i've heard)