This form is secure
Send a message
Search for members
This post is public
I did notice this some time back but seem to have forgotten about it again. Now I stumbled over it again and since I should actually be doing something else I'll procrastinate and write about it shortly.
It seems that blog posts display a different license for visitors and members. I don't think this is on purpose. I really believe it is a bug - and it needs to be fixed.
My documents (pictures, texts, videos [none yet], ...) are generally licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution + non Commercial license to allow other people to play with the things I have created creatively and freely.
I have set this as my default license in the preferences.
It does get applied to my pictures and is properly displayed regardless whether I am signed in as a member or have a look as a visitor.
It is not displayed properly for blog posts, though, when reading them unauthenticated. In this case the posts are presented as being licensed under Creative Commons Attribution + No Derivs.
This is very unfortunate and not correct.
Does anyone else notice the same? Is this only the case with the CC BY-NC license and only for blog posts or does this also happen with other license models and other media types?
I would be glad about feedback and a correction of this problem.
*Reinhard*pro says:
bug@bug.ipernity.com
Underscanpro replies:
Ich gebe es aber gleich mal weiter.
*Reinhard*pro says:
Underscanpro replies:
wdjpro says:
This post is public
Attribution + no Derivs
in the right hand column.
BTW, you say "My documents (pictures, texts, videos [none yet], ...) are generally licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution + non Commercial license to allow other people to play with the things I have created creatively and freely." This depends on your definition of free (free as in beer or free as in speech?). I think cc-by-sa creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 is the license (which I use) is the license I would say is "really" free.
Underscanpro replies:
Actually I am seeing "Attribution + no Derivs" myself, too, now - when signed in as well as an unauthenticated visitor.
It seems the bug has been fixed - which is nice on the one hand but sucks on the other in so far as all my blog posts are now licensed under "Attribution + no Derivs".
Still, my default license has always been "Attribution + Non-Commercial" and nothing else. So now I have to redefine the license of *all* posts to match what I always wanted it to be. Since there is no way of batch-processing blog posts I will have to do this manually on each and every one - which is a nuissance. Oh well...
BTW, you say "My documents (pictures, texts, videos [none yet], ...) are generally licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution + non Commercial license to allow other people to play with the things I have created creatively and freely."
This depends on your definition of free (free as in beer or free as in speech?). I think cc-by-sa creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 is the license (which I use) is the license I would say is "really" free.
You are of course absolutely right, that BY-SA is the "real" free license.
[Edit: Whereas the freest license would be the "simple" By-Attribution - no restrictions expect naming the author]
I have decided on the "Non-Commercial" restriction, though, to (1) allow people to use my works in own creative ways as long as (2) they do not do so in a commercial way.
If anyone wants to do so he will have to contact me and ask for permission and possible conditions.
I do this mainly to prevent "big companies" TM ;) from simply taking works I have created and reuse them for their own profit.
If e. g. someone wants to produce a calender with one of my shots in it and then sell it - this has happened to me - that is really no big deal. I will (usually) gladly grant permission to do so.
I personally want to make use of the possibilities of using CC licenses to further a collective culture, a culture of everyone, a culture that is not dominated by profit-oriented companies. Hence I tend to be sceptical about the commercial aspect.
The "Non-Commercial" part of CC is one big issue anyway. What is "commercial"? Does it apply to "Only For Profit" or also to "To Compensate Expenditures"?
Difficult aspect - but is being discussed a lot within CC.
[Oh boy, long comment-reply... longer than the post itself. Please be lenient toward me. :)]
Underscan edited this comment 2 months ago.