Tim's Gout Toes

admin answers:

I’ve found this one:

http://www.montana.edu/recycling/template/goat.jpg

admin answers:

Uploading them under such licenses means retaining credit. It’s like traditional copyright, but it permits free redistribution (Free in the sense of freedom. That is the sense of the word “free” used in this answer).

Defining freedom in various kinds of works:

“Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works – artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles – in short: anything that can be represented in digital form. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.

“Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become.

“To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean:

* “the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
* “the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
* “the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
* “the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works

“If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a free license does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.

“It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise definition of freedom for licenses and for works of authorship.

“Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away — they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.

“In order to be recognized as “free” under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:

* “The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses (“related rights”) such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.
* “The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict “reverse engineering”.
* “The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.
* “The freedom to distribute derivative works: In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).

Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., “copyleft”), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered permissible restrictions.”

Therefore, your YouTube video qualifies as a derivative work of copyleft images, and can be still freely-distributed. For that work, you deserve credit, along with the authors of those works.

(END OF ORIGINAL ANSWER)

Answer on details: Once you release it to the public domain, you can no longer control how your readers/viewers would redistribute, modify, study and use your works. You can no longer tell them what can they do and what they can’t do. Others might even reuse your work on their own and fail to give their readers/viewers the same freedom they enjoyed using your works.

However, releasing it under a copyleft license gives your readers/viewers the four freedoms would still means freedom for them. Moreover, if you tell them to keep all derivative works to follow the way you licensed it (such as the ShareAlike extension of the Creative Commons licenses), anyone who use it–whether they got it from you or from someone else–are required to give the same freedoms to others who ask them for it.

In other words, if you use ShareAlike licenses, you are telling your users to share what they got.

admin answers:

BAHAHA.

I read that question, and i thought the same thing.
I knew one of us R&P-ers would get offended!

>:| hmf.

MA: if somebody doesn’t friggin come up with one, i’m gonna make one myself!

EDIT: Jackie, that’s an understatement.
—-> Goats>rotten grapes>dog sh*t>jonas sisters