YouTube Introduces Creative Commons Option

geegel writes "YouTube has announced that it will introduce a Creative Commons license option and also provide remixing capabilities in its video editor. 'You can now access an ever-expanding library of Creative Commons videos to edit and incorporate into your own projects. ... You’ll also be able to mark any or all of your videos with the Creative Commons CC-BY license that lets others share and remix your work, so long as they give you credit.'"

Only CC-BY?

[XanC]

Why not CC0? Why do they care to prevent that? Or is "public domain" already an option?

Re:

[Captain.Abrecan]

I don't see that license on the list, is there another list? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [creativecommons.org]

Re:

[NJRoadfan]

The link is at the bottom of the page: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 [creativecommons.org]

Re:

[XanC]

I'm not sure why they hide it. The bottom of the page contains this paragraph:

We also provide tools that work in the "all rights granted" space of the public domain [creativecommons.org]. Our CC0 tool [creativecommons.org] allows licensors to waive all rights and place a work in the public domain, and our Public Domain Mark [creativecommons.org] allows any web user to "mark" a work as being in the public domain.

Re:

[mysidia]

Why not CC0? Why do they care to prevent that? Or is "public domain" already an option?

CC-BY-NC-SA should also be an option.

Frankly... I should be able to license my videos however I want, and tell Google whether I wish to allow other people to mix my videos.

The burden of compliance with the CC-BY-NC would then be with the end user. The last thing I want is someone taking my content, putting it in a commercial video, and selling it to viewers to a fee, however.

Re:

[Sparx139]

CC-NC Means that you can't use it commercially without the consent of the author. IANAL, but surely there could just be a waiver included that allowed Google to use the video for commercial use or something like that (aren't ToS counted as contracts?)

Could be cool.

[softWare3ngineer]

I could see this ending badly when a million people miss-use this licensed material and / or use someones copyrighted work and mark it CC

Fair use

[tepples]

And how will this mix with fair use? The use of someone else's non-free copyrighted work in a specific context is non-infringing based on a few factors, but use of the same work in another context might infringe.

Excerpt out of context

[tepples]

I was talking about a CC-BY work that includes short excerpts of non-free parts under a claim of fair use, much as a CC-BY-SA article on Wikipedia or Nookipedia or Wookieepedia might include quotations from a non-free work. Consider work A, which is a remix of work B, which in turn is CC-BY but includes a short quotation from non-free work C under a fair use claim. In B's context, the excerpt is a fair use; out of context, it might not be, and unless A can make its own fair use claim, the excerpt from C mig

Re:

[mysidia]

And how will this mix with fair use?

They should equip the video editor with a tool to let you mark start/end which time indexes on the video are "Fair use" and not CC licensed

Hit the nail on the head, there

[Mathinker]

Yup! A major problem with copyright is that bits automatically don't have extra meta "license" bits.

If everyone was super-paranoid about misusing information which might possibly be under copyright, Western civilization would grind to a screeching halt.

Re:

[Ruke]

Honestly, I don't see this happening in a more meaningful way than it already does on youtube, right now. Of course people are going to infringe on legitimate copyrights, and it's going to be ignored 95% of the time, until whoever holds the copyright files a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:

[aBaldrich]

YouTube partners get money from advertisement.
They are clever: you can share as long as you let YT profit from it.

Re:

[Amorymeltzer]

CC-BY-SA doesn't mean you can't profit from it, just that derivatives have to also be shared under the same license. While I won't miss hearing Friday on Wikipedia, the WMF had a great repository of audio and video that YouTube could gave had access to had they gone with SA.

Standard

[Kazzerscout]

I'm sticking with the Standard license. In the gaming community (I produce FPS commentaries) stealing - clips from montages in particular - is a major problem. Now although it appears this creative commons license makes sure credit given, I prefer editors to ask personally for content so I can ensure its going where I want it to.

Uncontactable author

[tepples]

So once you become uncontactable, do you want your work to become unusable?

Re:

[Thruen]

Nah, just put him on the pending list like the big boys do.

Re:

[VortexCortex]

I prefer editors to ask personally for content so I can ensure its going where I want it to.

Oh, that's nice of you to prefer that... As a FPS creator I would prefer it if you asked me permission before you devalued my product by overlaying your vapid comments over the clips you took from my games.

I see that "fair use" is a one way street to you!

Re:

[tepples]

A machine-readable statement of license allows YouTube to introduce tools that automate this reuse.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Does anyone else predict the horror that will soon encompass YouTube? Begun the Rick-rolling wars have. ;)

The studio recordings of Rick Astley are not CC-BY

[tepples]

Begun the Rick-rolling wars have.

Not necessarily. The studio recordings of Rick Astley are not CC-BY and thus will not be available to users of the automated remix tools.

Or maybe not...

[ATestR]

Don't worry, pretty soon you won't be allowed to embed youtube videos [infowars.com].

Re:

[JeremyBanks]

Don't spread FUD like it's fact. That's what someone is speculating the law might mean. I think that's a stupid way of interpreting the effect on YouTube; they already have the controls to prevent unauthorized playback/embedding, so anyone doing so is doing so legally. Herp.

Your content, your choice of license

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you letting Youtube decide? The license is metadata. If Youtube doesn't support your choice of license in their drop-down, put the licensing information somewhere else.

how sly

[mshenrick]

how sly, they only let you choose a license that allows commercial use, meaning I have to put that my videos are CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 in the description, and aren't tightly integrated with the editor etc.