The content in my blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution UK license. So that means that you can basically take the content and do what you like with it as long as you give me credit. So, as long as scrapers give me proper credit, I really can't say anything to what they're doing. I don't approve of what they're doing, but, as long as I'm using the Attribution license, I can't object to it.
The Licensing blog posts, Creative Commons, and license abusers article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
I don't know if this is an inherent failing of the Attribution license or not. Should it include an ethical clause, for example, that specifically disallows scraping of content and other abuses?
Part of the beauty of Creative Commons is the simplicity of the licenses. They make it easy for content producers to know what rights they have when working with other people's content. The idea is to make it easy (to legally) remix content. But it also makes it possible for lowlives to do things like scrape your blog's content en-masse, slap some ads on to it and make money off of your work. Moreover, there's nothing to stop someone taking that Creative Commons Attribution licensed picture of you from Flickr and using it in an ad campaign for a product or service that you don't support.
(Or is there? Surely releasing a photograph of a person under the Creative Commons Attribution license doesn't imply that there's a model release for that photograph? What if you release a photograph of someone else (without getting a model release) under an Attribution license and that photograph gets used in an ad campaign... are you liable if the subject of the photo objects to the use? Do you even have the right to release the photo under an Attribution license?)
Of course, you can shield yourself from a lot of these complications simply by using a non-commercial Creative Commons license for your content.
It's the age old dilemma: do you want your content to be as widely seen and used as possible or do you want greater control over how it is used?
Maybe I should use a non-commerical license. It would at least give me recourse against blog scrapers and I really don't approve of what they're doing...
That's it, I've talked myself into it! The content on my blog shall henceforth be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commerical UK license.
I'm using the excellent Creative-Commons-Configurator Wordpress plugin by George Notaras to include the license in the blog's header, in posts and on the feed.
What license are you using for your content? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject of licensing, Creative Commons, and abuses of open licenses.
The Licensing blog posts, Creative Commons, and license abusers article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
It is a wise decision to go for the Attribution non-commercial license.
Did you ever hear about the Flickr/Creative Commons/Virgin Mobile Australia botched ad campaign? Some people found out the down side of the commercial license the hard way:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ggunson/731012326/
This is what can happen if you release your photos under the commercial CC license.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/231370/Virgin_Mobile_Australia_sued_for_using_teen_s_photo_from_Flickr
Though in this instance Virgin were clearly in the wrong as they did not have a model release nor did provide the correct credits to the photographer.
Better safe than sorry…
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the links — wow, I missed that whole controversy! :) Didn’t realize Molly was involved.
Very interesting… reading the threads now.
[...] displaying a Creative Commons license on blog posts and I’ve added the license to the feed also. More. The Make scrapers work for your blog article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, [...]
[...] einen Artikel auf Aral Balkan zum Thema Creative Commons-Lizenzierung von Blogs bin ich auf das WordPress-Plugin [...]
“Any exposure is good for an artist.” — George Carlin
The problem is that not all scrapers are created equal. Some of my content has been utilized in chunks, removed from context to form large blog entries of mix-mashed Flash & Flex content. While I am linked on some of these splogs, it’s not accurate to see that I wrote that, or rather you did.
While others, they are just straight copies of my RSS feed without little design direction given vs. places like dzone.com & Digg which actually take time to provide good presentation.
To me, the whole point of Creative Commons was to bequeath peace of mind to the consumers of the CC content, not to protect your content from being abused. There are plenty of splogs out there making ad revenue on your content and NOT sharing parts of that revenue with you. Regardless, those ARE places inadvertently advertising “Aral Balkan” and what he writes, so I’d argue it’s not worth purusing major enforcement unless it’s a big name site. …unfortunately, the sploggers know this too…
I have nothing to add to the discussion about splogs save to toss my own annoyance onto the pile. Skeevy lowlifes.
I do want to express my delight over finding that CC plugin, however! I was wondering how people got it onto feeds, especially, and now I know. Into the “to do” pile it goes. Thanks!
Hi Oliver!
Thanks for the info! Thats what i searched for
Now my org blog is powered with CC license logo
I am sorry , i misspelled the Author name:
Thanks to Aral Balkan and for every one!