Merk: Denne teksten er mer enn ett år gammel. Jeg kan ikke garantere at alt som står her fremdeles er riktig eller det jeg mener. Les likevel og skriv en kommentar om du lurer på noe! English: Old post, might be outdated.
Yesterday I received an e-mail from a guy who wanted to use one of my photos for a personal project. He sent the e-mail to ask for my permission, even though the photo (like all my photos) is licensed under a Creative Commons license, meaning that as long as you follow the rules, you don’t have to ask permission.
Of course I don’t mind him letting me know he wants to use it, but I have heard that those with more skills than me are sometimes overwhelmed by unnecessary e-mails asking for permission to use something that they are already free to use.
Therefor I think it would be a good idea to collaborate on a proper reply e-mail to send to those asking permission to use Creative Commons licensed works.
Here is what I replied. What do you think about it, and what do you normally reply? Let’s create a better reply together!
Hi!
I really appreciate that you want to use my photo, and that you let me know about it. Thank you!
Just to let you know: Notice that the photo in question is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. That means that you can indeed use it for your personal use, without even asking for permission. All you have to do is follow the rules mentioned here (linked to from the sidebar on the Flickr photo page): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
So use both this, and any other Creative Commons licensed photo (or other work), for your personal use without asking permission in the future. But it is always polite to let the creator know about it, so please keep doing that.
Thanks, and enjoy! :)
If you have any questions about Creative Commons please read about it on the following website, or feel free to ask me! http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc
I license this reply under a CC0 license. Feel free to use it, or your derivative of it, without attributing me.
OK, litt sent å kommentere her, men…
En CC lisens betyr at man ikke må spørre om lov, men likevel må man faktisk informere rettighetsinnehaveren. Alle “Attribution”-lisenser krever at rettighetsinnehaver er informert slik at de kan passe på at sitatplikten blir fulgt og de kan “beskytte sitt gode navn og rykte”.
Så å informere er ikke bare et spørsmål om høflighet.
Og videre fra det… At du har lisensiert svaret ditt under “CC0”, betyr absolutt ingenting i Norge(Eller noe annet land som har skrevet under på den fullstendige Berne-konvensjonen). De Idéelle rettighetene, altså sitatplikten og retten til å beskytte sitt gode navn og rykte, er ufravikelige og evige. Du kan ikke bare sette “CC0” på et verk og så ha det som allemannseie. Du har ennå opphavsretten på teksten din, og enn om du har skrevet “CC0” på verket så har du ennå mulighet til å bruke dine idèelle rettigheter(Altså de samme rettigheter som man har gjennom en “CC-by”).
Ehmmm… Ja.
Det var det jeg hadde å si.
I know I’m late, but well, I didn’t know of you (or this blog) since before yesterday, so can you blame me? I’d just like to inform you, in case you didn’t know yet, that NonCommercial CC licenses are useless in the Free Culture movement. They are incompatible with every free culture license, and thus the only people who can use your license are people who don’t participate in the free culture movement. To me, at least, that seems to entirely go against the whole point of using CC licenses in the first place.
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
Uff. Om du kommenterte sent, så svarer vel så sent! Beklager.
Hvor har du det fra at alle lisenser krever at man gir beskjed til opphavspersonen om bruken? Jeg har aldri hørt noe om det. Jeg har ikke finlest legal code versjonen av noen av lisensene, men i human readable-versjonen av CC BYstår det kun denne restriksjonen:
CC0: Der har du selvsagt helt rett! :)
Well, you’re both right and wrong IMHO.
Sure, NC works can not be used in FLOSS, but I don’t see why that should be the only reason for CC to exist.
The reason to use CC licenses is to remove some restrictions and let other people use your works without having to ask permission or set up a completely new license between the creator and the person that wants to use it. CC NC-licenses does achieve this goal. Maybe not to as great an extent as you and many others would like, but still. It is a lot better than just keeping the full, normal copyright.
That being said: This was an old photo of mine. I’m not using the NC clause on my works nowadays. This blog is under BY-SA, for example. I might go back and relicense those old photos one day, but logging in to Flickr is such a pain…