<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Creative Commons, contracts and copyright&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/creative-commons-contracts-and-copyright/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/creative-commons-contracts-and-copyright/</link>
	<description>www.pragerlaw.us</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:03:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Prager</title>
		<link>http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/creative-commons-contracts-and-copyright/#comment-4136</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Prager</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:18:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/?p=481#comment-4136</guid>
		<description>George,

Thank you for posting.  Of course some people use Creative Commons branded licenses to allow others to use their works on a gratis basis.  However, the Creative Commons 3.0 license to which I refer may have implications beyond those a user may expect if they do not read the actual license and only rely on the short hand form (pictograph).  

Additionally, the license inadequately addresses, in my opinion, the concept of commercialization.  A documentary filmmaker could easily claim that her film is not commercial, but then shop for distribution which is commercial in nature. 

But  you are free, as a copyright owner, to do what you want with your works.  Perhaps the tried and true axiom Caveat Emptor applies to Creative Commons.

Nancy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George,</p>
<p>Thank you for posting.  Of course some people use Creative Commons branded licenses to allow others to use their works on a gratis basis.  However, the Creative Commons 3.0 license to which I refer may have implications beyond those a user may expect if they do not read the actual license and only rely on the short hand form (pictograph).  </p>
<p>Additionally, the license inadequately addresses, in my opinion, the concept of commercialization.  A documentary filmmaker could easily claim that her film is not commercial, but then shop for distribution which is commercial in nature. </p>
<p>But  you are free, as a copyright owner, to do what you want with your works.  Perhaps the tried and true axiom Caveat Emptor applies to Creative Commons.</p>
<p>Nancy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: george</title>
		<link>http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/creative-commons-contracts-and-copyright/#comment-4135</link>
		<dc:creator>george</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/?p=481#comment-4135</guid>
		<description>Yes, this is why people choose creative commons, so that others can use it freely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, this is why people choose creative commons, so that others can use it freely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
