|2011-06-13 12:28:49||Changing SkS graphics Creative Commons license to make it easier to use them in Wikipedia|
Got this suggestion from SkS user Mark-US who I've just upgraded so he can access the forum and join this discussion:
MY TWO CENTS: I'm a big fan of this idea and okay with changing the creative commons license on the graphics in order to make it easier to use our graphics in Wikipedia. The SkS graphics are a very powerful resource, have already had a very strong impact in many areas (web pages, blog posts, articles in scientific journals, a NOAA report, scientist talks, a US Navy report, climate communicator articles and PPT presentations, etc). So the more widely we can disseminate them, the greater the impact.
No objection; only complete agreement from this mouse. More and broader access is the point in order to disseminate the message as effectively and efficiently as possible. And the power of the visual contained in a graph is beyond measure.
The more eyes Sks graphics reach, the better, IMO.
At the moment the only copyright I can see is the one that appears at the bottom of each page, i.e. John Cook. I think we need to explicitly state for each graph the licence under which the author releases it. There are several possible licences suitable for wikipedia use.
Thanks for welcoming me to this discussion John.
Its my understanding that there are only two creative commons licenses that comply with wiki's rules to be considered a "free" and therefore wiki-complian image. Those are "attribution" and "attribution-sharing". This means that others will be welcome to change the image.
Please consider the possibility that:
someone will use it in a commercial work and not share $ with you (well that stinks but at least folks would see it)
someone changes it to somehow ridicule you (that would REALLY stink)
Anthony Watts changes it to ridicule you, and attributes THAT version to you, and makes money off the book (I would certainly never suggest he'd do any such slanderous thing but if he did that would REALLY-x-REALLY stink)
I'm not an attorney, but as I said to John in a private email, IMO the license text that supposedly limits changes to the author's vision sounds warm and fuzzy, but from my courtroom contract battles (as a litigant) its my guess that provision of the license is unenforceable due to subjectivity. If so, its my non-attorney opinion this would be a foolish change unless (as I hope) you are willing to privately think of the attribute-sharing cc license as being for the benefit of honest people who want to respect your work, and you would probably just grin and bear it if scoundrels decide to abuse your work. If you think you might want to retain control or have something tangible to enforce thru litigation,then don't do this.
In closing, a note about wiki. Here is the link for wiki traffic analysis
All this gives is page views. Its hard to say who is viewing these pages, and for what purpose. For example, a page with 4000 views by junior high kids getting ready to plagiarize for a paper has less international policy implications than a page with 40 views by staff underlings preparing briefing papers for science policy advisors. My point is, just because a page has low traffic doesn't necessarily mean it has no impact. If anyone knows a way to get more meaningful data than mere page views I'd like to learn it.
Mark (US) aka real life Steve Elfelt (still USA)
Sounds good to me - would be cool to get the graph posted on Wikipedia. The GFDL or Creative Commons licenses seem reasonable to me.