I begin by presenting you the different types of license disclaimers that may mark any work posted on Flickr: "All Rights Reserved", "Public Domain Work", "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)", "Attribution", "Attribution-ShareAlike", "Attribution NoDerivs", "Attribution-NonCommercial", "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike", "Attribution-NonComercial-NoDerivs", "United States government work", "No known copyright restriction". As you can see, the CC licenses are listed separately from the ones corresponding to public domain mark, and also separated from the most appealing “no known copyright restrictions” license, which has become very exploited, especially since the Flickr Commons project, which has been promoting it worldwide. Flickr Commons is a very interesting project that a lot of private and public institutions have joined, participating in something that we may call a “great sharing event”. Under the motto Help us catalog the world’s public photo archives, many museums, institutes, libraries, private collectors and curators have uploaded hundreds of photos and images on Flickr’s platform, with the purpose of encouraging the study, use and remix of the images in imaginative ways. This sounds very good, I know, but a very close look at what this "no known copyright restrictions" license really is will help us discover the one and only perpetual truth of the online environment – never trust without reading or stop judging by appearance. 1. “No known copyright restriction” is not equivalent to “no copyright restrictions” I admit that this might be confusing since these phrases are highly similar. The difference is mainly directed by the word “known” which diverts the focus from “restrictions” (in general) to “restrictions known” by someone (if any). So, “no copyright restrictions” means (in general and without additional info) that the forbiddance specific to copyright is not applied, and “no known copyright restriction” means that if there are some copyright restrictions, they are not known. The verb know is also… Un răspuns

1. Creative Commons do not include un-protectable works or works included in the public domain. When you’re considering one of the Creative Commons’ licenses for the distribution of your work, you must first check the flexibility offered by this licensing system. This flexibility must not be confused with the complete lack of any form of protection, so keep in mind one important thing – your work will still be protected by copyright law. It is very clearly stated in the Creative Commons’ Terms and Conditions that the work will still preserve all the copyright features: THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. And, if you are wondering what the reason behind this strong emphasis on copyrightability would be, you probably don’t know that most people make great confusion when asserting Creative Commons, mostly because they are only taking into consideration the short version of the license, which gives no explicit terms or details on this aspect. This is why we are used to perceive things like: “Creative Commons means no copyright”, or “Creative Commons means no rules”, both of them being far from the truth. Creative Commons is actually based on copyright law, so, there is no time for fears about this being a territory without any control; if you choose one of the Creative Commons licenses, you will still have the ability to control the way the work is used and, if infringing circumstances arise, you will still have legal grounds before any court, because it will be a matter of contract law since every Creative Commons license is in… Răspunde

Nu știu ce ați făcut vinerea trecută, dar eu am fost la Brașov pentru festivalul de cultură liberă. Am cunoscut-o pe Alina de la Laborazon, i-am întâlnit (în sfârșit) pe Alex și pe Ioana de la Copy-me, am aflat și eu ce-i aia Flattr, Patreon și m-am și întors acasă cu o gramadă de stickere. Frumos. Frumos ar fi fost și dacă aș mai fi mai fi rămas mai mult de ora 9 PM pentru că urmau câteva movie-uri, printre care și The Internet’s Own Boy: the story of Aaron Swartz. Programul festivalului este încă aici, dar nu vreau sa ziceți că este too late pentru că nu e niciodată prea târziu să aflați despre acest tip de festival ori despre acele maker spaces inițiate de Laborazon în Brașov, unde lumea învață și se învață și unde ideea meșteșugului este adaptată într-un sistem cu beneficii pentru toți - contribui, participi, creezi. Eu asta am priceput, ma bucur că i-am descoperit, sunt multe de aflat de pe site-ul lor și mă bucur că am întâlnit persoane dornice de a descoperi că la baza unei culturi libere stă bucuria de a împărtăși cunoștințe și resurse. Mai jos găsiți câteva dintre cadourile primite. Cel mai inspirat și inspirant mi s-a părut acela de download originalitate, creație copy-me.org. Și, mult mai jos, un video de prezentare pentru ce înseamnă patreon.com. Enjoy!                     https://youtu.be/wH-IDF809fQ Răspunde

Revenind la “read-write culture”, gasim pe eSchoolNews stirea ”Florida adopts open-content reading platform”, stire din care aflam ca platforma online free-reading.net a primit acreditare din partea statului Florida ca resursa autorizata de invatamant. Free-reading.net permite profesorilor sa downloadeze, sa copieze si sa distribuie lectiile cu colegii din acelasi domeniu. Site-ul incearca sa faca disponibil in mod gratuit, intregii lumi, instructiuni de calitate, bazate pe cercetare, explicite si sistematice aplicabile invatamantului primar. Intreg continutul disponibil pe free-reading.net este publicat sub licenta Creative Commons Atribution-Share Alike. Aceasta licenta acorda utilizatorilor dreptul de a copia, distribui, transmite si adapta resursele sub conditia ca autorului original sa-i fie recunoscuta aceasta calitate. Utilizatorii care modifica, transforma sau creeaza opere derivate sunt obligati de asemenea sa distribuie remixurile sub aceeasi licenta, similar obligatiilor ce deriva din utilizarea unui open-source software. Răspunde