Archive for the 'creative commons' Category

Groan: here comes another competitor to Wikipedia

Google has started their own product to rival the hugely popular free encyclopaedia, Wikipedia.

What they have dubbed “knol” will be written by “experts”; now where have I heard that before… (cough* Citizendium *cough)? Their little units of knowledge will take precedent when searching for particular items of topic over, say, Wikipedia.

They are going to lock the editing of the entries to their approved authors and will only allow the public to suggest changes, etc. But with this you would have thought you could trust what is being written. However, on the Google Blog they wrote this: “Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content.” [Their emphasis.]

Ahh but it gets worse, they are going to completely contrast with Wikipedia by allowing the authors to put in their own opinions and point of views. Wow, “smart” people thought that one up! Jeez!

Oh, and the content will also be influenced by advertisers! “At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads. […] Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads.” I don’t expect anything bad to come from that advertorial decision!

And expect to wade through a few entries on the same topic, “Competition of ideas is a good thing.”

And their sample doesn’t overly help the idea as well. Did anyone else spot the spelling mistake on the second line? I’m not saying that Wikipedia doesn’t have spelling mistakes, but for a sample, Google should have been more careful.

At least their site will be under a Creative Commons licence.

Hat tip: Brian Anderton.

Advertisements

New Zealand Labour goes Creative Commons

The New Zealand Labour website recently launched a hot, new website, and in the footer they have this to say: “Content licensed with Creative Commons 3.0.” So, good on them!

But it clashes with this right before it: “Copyright © 2007 by the New Zealand Labour Party.”

Although it could be a nice ploy to get their content and message out there more by allowing people to copy their information directly with credit. However, it doesn’t actually state what licence they are using, there are many to choose from.

Good on them though for taking the initiative and attempting to do this; it really failed though.

When Creative Commons fails the commoners

UPDATE: They have now attributed me after contacting them, but this still goes to show that adhering to proper licensing is good practice. 

I like photography and I licence all my photographs and written pieces (including this blog and all posts too) under a Creative Commons licence.

But when people take my work without crediting the author, well that just bugs me because they took something that was free but didn’t have the courtesy to acknowledge the source.

In this case I am referring to a photograph I took of local politician, Clayton Cosgrove (MP for Waimakariri if you needed to know). The National Business Review were the ones who took the photograph and didn’t credit the source, despite having previously done so correctly.

I am pleased that The NBR (or media in general) are using my work, but what they did was theft (copyright infringement) because they didn’t abide by the licensing terms of attribution.

Related blog post: https://gpollard.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/now-a-published-photographer/

Creative Commons and Virgin sued

Note, I realise I am a little late in posting this, but just found out that action was taken as a result of their advertising campaign. Virgin and the Creative Commons Corporation are being sued because Virgin used photographs taken from Flickr for their advertising campaign.

The reason Virgin is being sued is because they claim the photographs were used in a derogatory way, the accompanying text said “Dump your pen friend.” Now that is understandable, but they did put in on the World Wide Web, and put it under a commercial and allowed derivative works to be made from the family portrait. So, you would say that it is their own fault in this. Well, Creative Commons comes in here. They are suing Creative Commons Corporation for not telling him what commercial use meant.

If he didn’t want his work to be used in any way, he just had to not change the licence and left it under full copyright.


About me

I write at Wikinews, and Practical eCommerce. I thoroughly enjoy writing about news and current affairs. I also have a TV related blog at Throng.

Support free media, donate to Wikinews!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.

The Ubuntu Counter Project - user number # 14890

Archives

My Flickr photographs