創用CC

出自KMU Wiki

(修訂版本間差異)

在2011年11月30日 (三) 12:56所做的修訂版本

在Creative Commons （ CC ）的是一個非盈利性組織，致力於擴大範圍的創作，供他人在法律上建立和分享。 The organization has released several copyright licenses known as Creative Commons licenses .該組織已發布了幾個版權許可稱為創作共用許可。 These licenses, depending on the one chosen, restrict only certain rights (or none) of the work instead of traditional copyright, which is more restrictive.這些許可證，這取決於一個選擇，限制只有某些權利（或無）的工作，而不是傳統的版權，這是更具限制性的。

目的

在Creative Commons許可，使版權持有人給予部分或全部他們的權利，向公眾，同時保留其他通過各種許可證和合同計劃，包括致力於公共領域的或公開的內容許可條款。 The intention is to avoid the problems current copyright laws create for the sharing of information .意圖是要避免的問題，目前的版權法律的建立，為信息共享。

The project provides several free licenses that copyright owners can use when releasing their works on the Web .該項目提供一些免費的授權，版權擁有人可以使用時，釋放他們的作品在網站上。 It also provides RDF / XML metadata that describes the license and the work, making it easier to automatically process and locate licensed works.它還提供了RDF的 / XML 元數據描述的許可和工作，使得它更容易自動的過程，並找到領有牌照的工程。 Creative Commons also provides a "Founders' Copyright" [1] contract, intended to re-create the effects of the original US Copyright created by the founders of the US Constitution.創意的商品，還提供了“創'版權” [ 1 ]合同，打算重新建立影響原來的美國版權所帶來的創始人美國憲法。

All these efforts, and more, are done to counter the effects of what Creative Commons considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture .所有這些努力，和更多的，是做了反效果什麼樣的創作共用認為是主導和越來越多的限制性許可的文化。 In the words of Lawrence Lessig , founder of Creative Commons and former Chairman of the Board , it is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past". [2] Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions. [3] [4]在的話，勞倫斯萊斯格，創辦創意的商品，和前董事局主席，這是“文化在其中的創造者去創造，只有徵得強大的，或創作者從過去的” 。 [ 2 ]萊斯格保持現代文化佔主導地位的傳統內容的分銷商，以維持和加強其壟斷的文化產品，如流行音樂及流行的電影，和創意的商品，可以提供替代這些限制。 [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

歷史

在Creative Commons許可預先月由開放出版許可協議和GNU自由文檔許可證（ gfdl ）。 The GFDL was intended mainly as a license for software documentation, but is also in active use by non-software projects such as Wikipedia .該gfdl的用意，主要是作為一個許可軟件文檔，而且是在積極地利用非軟件的項目，如文字。 The Open Publication License is now largely defunct, and its creator suggests that new projects not use it.開放出版許可協議是現在基本上解散，和它的創始人表明，新開工項目不使用它。 Both licenses contained optional parts that, in the opinions of critics, made them less "free".這兩個執照所載的任擇部分，在的意見，批評，使他們少“免費” 。 The GFDL differs from the CC licenses in its requirement that the licensed work be distributed in a form which is "transparent", ie, not in a proprietary and/or confidential format.該gfdl不同，消委會在其許可的規定，即領有牌照的工作分佈在一種形式是“透明” ，即，而不是在一個專有的和/或機密的格式。

Headquartered in San Francisco , Creative Commons was officially launched in 2001. Lawrence Lessig , the founder and former chairman, started the organization as an additional method of achieving the goals of his Supreme Court case, Eldred v. Ashcroft .總部設在舊金山，創作共用正式於2001年發起的。勞倫斯萊斯格，創始人和前主席，開始組織作為一項額外的方法，實現他的最高法院的情況下， eldred訴阿什克羅夫特。 The initial set of Creative Commons licenses was published on December 16 , 2002 . [5] The project itself was honored in 2004 with the Golden Nica Award at the Prix Ars Electronica , for the category "Net Vision".最初的一套創作共用許可證發表於2002年 12月16日。 [ 5 ]項目本身很榮幸在2004年與黃金nica獎在大獎賽亞美尼亞救濟協會，電子，為一類“淨願景” 。

The Creative Commons was first tested in court in early 2006, when podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos without permission from his Flickr page .在Creative Commons首次測試在法庭在2006年年初，當podcaster 亞當咖哩狀告荷蘭小報誰發布的照片，未經允許從他的flickr頁。 The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial license.照片下已領取牌照的在Creative Commons非商業性使用許可。 While the verdict was in favour of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as long as they did not repeat the offense.而判決是在贊成，咖哩，小報避免不必支付歸還給他，只要他們沒有重複的進攻。 An analysis of the decision states, "The Dutch Court’s decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and bind users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license." [6]分析的決定，國， “荷蘭法院的判決是特別值得注意，因為它確認的條件，一個Creative Commons License的自動適用於內容下已領取牌照的，並綁定用戶對此類內容的，即使沒有明確同意，或有知識，條件許可“ [ 6 ]

On December 15 , 2006 , Professor Lessig retired as chair and appointed Joi Ito as the new chair, in a ceremony which took place in Second Life .關於2006年 12月15日，已退休的教授萊斯格作為主席，並委任joi它作為新的主席，在一個儀式上發生的第二次生命。

本地化

原來的非本地化的創作共用許可人的書面與美國的法律制度介意，所以措辭可能不兼容不同的地方立法和提供的許可證強制執行，在各個司法管轄區。 To address this issue, Creative Commons International has started to port the various licenses to accommodate local copyright and private law.為了解決這個問題，創意的商品，國際已開始在港口的各項執照，以容納當地版權和私法。 As of February 2008, there are 43 jurisdiction-specific licenses, with 8 other jurisdictions in drafting process, and more countries joining the project .截至2008年2月，有43個司法管轄區的具體執照，與八月其他司法管轄區在草擬的過程中，與更多的國家加入該項目。

批評

關鍵所採取的立場大致可分為投訴缺乏：

A political position - Where the object is to critically analyze the foundations of the Creative Commons movement and offer an eminent critique (eg Berry & Moss 2005 , Geert Lovink , Free Culture movements).政治立場-在哪裡目的是批判地分析的基礎在C reativeC ommons運動，並提供一位傑出的批判（如漿果＆莫斯2 005年， g eertl ovink，免費，自由文化運動）。 One of the more notable concerns to be found in this vein of criticism is on the role the Creative Commons plays as an unconcerned corporate filter.一個比較顯著的關注，被發現在這方面的批評是對的作用，在Creative Commons發揮作為一個袖手旁觀公司的過濾器。 As mentioned in Martin Hardie and "Creative License Fetishism" , "When one examines closely just exactly what sort of 'freedom' is ultimately to be had within these licenses, one is quick to discover that they are primarily set up as tools meant to feed directly into corporate co-option." Matteo Pasquinelli (2008) describes two fronts of criticism: "those who claim the institution of a real commonality against Creative Commons restrictions (non-commercial, share-alike, etc.) and those who point out Creative Commons complicity with global capitalism".作為中提到的李柱銘哈迪和“創意許可證拜物教” ， “當一個人緊密合作，探討究竟什麼樣的'自由' ，最終是要了這些執照，一個是快速地發現，它們主要是設立了作為工具的意思飼料直接進入公司的合作選項“ 。馬特奧帕斯奎內利（ 2008 ）描述了兩方面的批評： ”誰索賠制度的一個真正的共同性對創意的商品，限制（非商業，分享相似等）和那些誰指出創作共用共謀與全球資本主義“ 。 Pasquinelli specifically criticises CC for not establishing "productive commons".帕斯奎內利特別批評消委會沒有建立“生產的商品” 。
A common sense position - These usually fall into the category of "it is not needed" or "it takes away user rights" (see Toth 2005 or Dvorak 2005).一個共同的意識，立場-這些通常落入類： “這是沒有必要”或“它剝奪用戶的權利” （見托特2 005年或德伏扎克的2 005年）。
A pro-copyright position - These are usually marshalled by the content industry and argue either that Creative Commons is not useful, or that it undermines copyright (Nimmer 2005).一個親版權的立場-這些通常是調動由內容產業，並辯稱，無論是創意的商品，是不是有用的，或認為它破壞了版權（ n immer2 005年）。
Another criticism is that it worsens license proliferation , by providing multiple licenses that are incompatible .另一項批評是，它惡化許可證擴散，通過提供多種許可證是不相容的。 Most notably, 'attribution-sharealike' and 'attribution-noncommercial-sharealike' are incompatible, meaning that works under these licenses cannot be combined in a derivative work without obtaining permission from the license-holder.最值得注意的是， '歸屬-共享'和' 署名-非商業性-共享'是不兼容的，也就是說，根據這些工程的許可，不能合併在一個衍生金融工具的工作沒有獲得許可從許可證持有人。

資料引用：[1]

取自"http://wiki.kmu.edu.tw/index.php/%E5%89%B5%E7%94%A8CC"