Kopyleft Authors

[Mourning Star]

That's how it works with all colleges and universities in the US

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One of my teachers last year said that anything they wrote for lectures belonged to the University, which she was pissed off about. When I suggested that she put it online first and release it to public domain, so that the Uni couldn't claim it after that, she seemed to think that wasn't possible.

I still think she must be wrong, but maybe she'd signed a contract saying that she would create content for the Uni or some bullshit like that?

It's a lot like research papers belong to the department the research is done in. Two things spring to mind; why the hell is she upset about it, and why, exactly, do you think your professor is wrong about the terms of her own employment? Do you generally think she's stupid?

[Kai]

I'm starting to think that when people say Kopyleft here, they more or less mean Creative Commons license.

I think I may start declaring that.

[Cain]

I actually like the Creative Commons licences.

I keep meaning to put one up on my blog, but forgetting.

[Cramulus]

I'm starting to think that when people say Kopyleft here, they more or less mean Creative Commons license.

I think I may start declaring that.

I've always meant Public Domain.

One of my favorite descriptions is from the "No License" description at uncyclopedia:

Licensed under absolutely nothing. Have a fucking field day. Abuse this for your own sick pleasures.    
I am content releasing my work completely to the public without conservative, territorial, and possessive need to claim some sort of stake in it. I do not need thousands of cleverly written loophole-"some rights reserved" licenses, nor do I need to debate about the superiority of any of them, rather, I toss the entire equation out the window and render it effectively useless. I fully realise that a man in El Salvador could profit wildly from my efforts and gain the millions of dollars I never did, and could theoretically hunt down every copy and burn it, leaving him as the sole distributor; however, this does not offend me, rather, I allow all to be shared, taking the risk and fully knowing the potential repercussions, rather than let the menace that is copyright conquer yet another soul.

Syn has a really good description of Kopyleft at poee:

http://www.poee.co.uk/k.txt

All quotes and images from other sources are copyright their respective
owners, but any content original to this document is open
source, unless specifically stated otherwise. Do with it what you like,
but please attribute properly. If you do not agree with the KopyLeft
principle.

KopyLeft ensures the widest dissemination of information. We disagree
with the way that copyright and patent law in the United States and
around the world is unceasingly modified and broadened due to lobbying
by corporations such as Disney and organizations such as the MPAA. It is
ludicrous and inexcusable to equate copyright infringement with terrorism,
as MPAA president Jack Valenti did, and we want no part of that mindset.

Copyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited
from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not
the individual artist.

Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice
in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of
artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived
on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not
possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.

In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global.
Scheherazade’s work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as
Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works
enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and
provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.

For Eris’ sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National
Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free
on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.

I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most
from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their
versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should
certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are
dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property,
especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this
is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of
campaign contributions.

Since we can do nothing about these misguided souls, we have KopyLefted our
material. It isn’t Shakespeare, but it’s the best we can do. What do you
think of that, Petreley?

[bones]

One of my teachers last year said that anything they wrote for lectures belonged to the University, which she was pissed off about. When I suggested that she put it online first and release it to public domain, so that the Uni couldn't claim it after that, she seemed to think that wasn't possible.

I still think she must be wrong, but maybe she'd signed a contract saying that she would create content for the Uni or some bullshit like that?

It's a lot like research papers belong to the department the research is done in. Two things spring to mind; why the hell is she upset about it, and why, exactly, do you think your professor is wrong about the terms of her own employment? Do you generally think she's stupid?

Honestly, I was never dazzled by her brilliance, but I suppose it's more wishful thinking on my part trying to find a way around a copyright law that potentially says that I don't own my own creation.

Cuz fuck that.

Having said that, I completely understand why it is that way, it does make a lot of sense in many ways, but also makes the hippie idealist in me cringe just a little.

One of my favorite descriptions is from the "No License" description at uncyclopedia:

Licensed under absolutely nothing. Have a fucking field day. Abuse this for your own sick pleasures.    
I am content releasing my work completely to the public without conservative, territorial, and possessive need to claim some sort of stake in it. I do not need thousands of cleverly written loophole-"some rights reserved" licenses, nor do I need to debate about the superiority of any of them, rather, I toss the entire equation out the window and render it effectively useless. I fully realise that a man in El Salvador could profit wildly from my efforts and gain the millions of dollars I never did, and could theoretically hunt down every copy and burn it, leaving him as the sole distributor; however, this does not offend me, rather, I allow all to be shared, taking the risk and fully knowing the potential repercussions, rather than let the menace that is copyright conquer yet another soul.

That is fabulous. As is POEE's

[Iason Ouabache]

I'm partial to CC-by-NC-SA: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/  It's basically the same thing as Kopyleft but requires attribution and limits use to non-commercial. Because I'll be damned if someone else makes money off of my shit. 

And yes, the Loveshade comment was a joke... sorta. I just don't like being associated with that spag.

[East Coast Hustle]

any original work I have ever posted is copyright, though I don't believe I have ever said no to anyone who asked if they could use it unaltered and attributed.

not because I really believe in current copyright law, but because nothing else currently available satisfies my desire to retain control of my own work.

[Cain]

In light of current events, I have changed my opinion on the use of my material.  Please refer to the second post in this thread for changes.

[Payne]

I want everyone who wishes to use my work to contact me first, and to have a clear plan of it's use before they consider using it for something.

I'm not going to apply this retroactively, but all original works by me from now on need to be cleared first.

[Cait M. R.]

My work is copyrighted unless you ask really nicely and I'm not particularly fond of it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have also updated my stance, which I'm glad I did because I have since then posted work that I definitely want to retain copyright to.

Anything that I have already given permission to publish, I would like to clarify I released under Creative Commons, rather than a single-use copyright license. Do with it what thou wilt, more or less.

For anything which I have not yet given permission to publish, I will need to clarify at the time of granting permission whether I am releasing it as a single-use copyright license or under Creative Commons.

[Faust]

I just copyrighted this thread.
get out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I just copyrighted this thread.
get out.

 

[Triple Zero]

I have also updated my stance, which I'm glad I did because I have since then posted work that I definitely want to retain copyright to.

Anything that I have already given permission to publish, I would like to clarify I released under Creative Commons, rather than a single-use copyright license. Do with it what thou wilt, more or less.

For anything which I have not yet given permission to publish, I will need to clarify at the time of granting permission whether I am releasing it as a single-use copyright license or under Creative Commons.

Nigel, "Creative Commons" refers to a set of six different licenses. You should pick one of them, this page http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses explains what they do (in very short non-legalese single paragraphs).