Talk:Creative Commons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

For the list of templates for Creative Commons licenses in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creative_Commons_Licenses.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mohanavamsi iska.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I expanded the criticism section and added some counter-criticism comments to help balance it and make it more neutral, but I wasn't sure how to integrate the criticism into the very few other sections of the page, as Wikipedia suggests. Not all of the criticism sections will fit in the other remaining sections, so I wasn't sure where to move them. Does anyone have any suggestions?Jm94904 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010

just uploaded a rewrite/revision of the criticism section of this page. still working on it. i dissolved the discussion of incorrect licensing into the criticism section.Karlyndesteno (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

97.89.114.79 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)I feel the criticism section in this article really does too much of a disservice to CC. If one did not otherwise know about CC, after reading this article, I fear that the criticism section would be the thing most remembered. Because of that, I feel that this overall article is not really any good. I think the criticism section should be condensed and summarized much more.[reply]

Hi everyone, recently Flickr announced it had over 200 million photos uploaded using the creative commons license. Should we add this to the current page, especially as an update to the 2008 statistic of over 180 million documents? here's a link to the Flickr blog http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/10/05/200-million-creative-commons-photos-and-counting/ Bjoeeojb (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this news article about the Creative Commons? I am following the wiki feed on g+, posted @8:23 pm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324669104578204300433143478.html (talk)I am not sure I understand it all, but should be added to the Criticism's section maybe. —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Maybe groups of individuals have released their content without proper consent. Which is not really covered by the TOS... is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry ||sock puppetry||??

Lucas Luciano Lucas Mangumbala (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common Creativity Expiry Date[edit]

Can anyone tell me if Common Creativity have expiry date. If it have, how is the time period is calculated? Would the period differ from one country to another? Does spesific state have to rectified this copyright rules or it is already cover under Berne Convention. Yosri (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no expiry date/term limits on CC licenses. --Joi (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only time it would expire, is per the normal lengths for terms per local law. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Common procedure[edit]

I recommend a 'Practical User's Guide to publishing under Creative Commons' which covers this and other high probability uses by folk who want to share their mind work with the world.
Perhaps something like the following:
To freely share a poem with the world

"I am rotund, and so are you. As Americans overweight, we'll eat 'till were blue." by "Wikidity" under Creative Commons Open (CC-NC) License

1) Review the guidelines at 'Considerations for licensors'. CC Australia has developed a flow chart or PDF.
2) Think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons license. It cannot be revoked.
3) Post the above someplace public on the web, that is where it does not require a proprietary account to read it.
4) Sit back and basque in your growing glory as you watch the world flock to your wisdom in profound adulation and emulation, and copy it to their own email signatures, billboards, doorsteps, and T-shirts.

If these few steps are not quite correct, correct them or wait until someone else tries to do so, or perhaps you can find and link to an existing description.


--Wikidity (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess[edit]

It really needs a total rewrite. At present, it's really just a jumble of lists, bullet points, etc.

PainMan (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every things in our universe are like that are all complicated, all unclear, and all unorganized, aren't they? JSK (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm taking a stab at a total rewrite this weekend and will post something here soon.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to seeing the re-written version! I also deeply agree that this article has to be seriously improved. CC is too important an organization to skip over. I would love to participate in the reformation of contents. If there is anyone interested just let me know. Maybe together we can do "something" about it! --YuriJ89(ROK) (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Stallman's comments disappear to?[edit]

There used to be a paragraph about Stallman's objects (such as [1]) and about the change that was later made to fix this problem. Does anyone still have the link about the change made and Stallman's current position on CC? Gronky (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was the link used previously, but http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7520 is the announcement of retiring the two licenses that did not permit the minimum of global verbatim noncommercial distribution http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5719 is an earlier letter from Lessig mentioning Stallman's criticism of those two licenses and http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter is a much more recent letter from Stallman that says CC can be trusted. I don't think there was any explicit reaction to the bad licenses retirement from Stallman, though shortly after a recommendation on the FSF site to use FAL instead of CC BY or BY-SA disappeared -- cf before http://web.archive.org/web/20070529010548/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherLicenses and after http://web.archive.org/web/20070608175855/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherLicenses Mike Linksvayer (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further re Stallman on CC -- the FSF chose CC for the 2008 FSF Free Software Awards#Social_benefit_award, presented by RMS himself on 2009-03-21. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is likely true but it isn't supported by its cited source:
Specifically, the Creative Commons NC license has been denounced by FSF founder Richard Stallman because, he says, it denies users a "basic freedom" to reuse materials as they see fit.
The given source would support "Stallman agrees with Mako Hill that CC should establish a base level of freedom" or "Stallman has denounced Creative Commons because of concerns about some of its licenses", but not the sentence we have. --Pnm (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Ipsign has made the article text agree with the source. FWIW the speech referred to by the source, "copyright vs. community", is one Stallman has been giving since at least 2000, ie prior to CC. FSF has updated the relevant page with a transcription of a more recent version, but you can see transcription from 2000 at http://web.archive.org/web/20080801033620/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html ... in the speech Stallman describes his requirements for the minimum level of freedom for functional, opinion, and aesthetic works. Others have since applied his standard for functional works to all kinds of works. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Especially the extensive external links mostly of poor quality need to be cleaned up.--Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only part of this article that could do with some improvement. I tried to move stuff around a bit to improve the structure.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tools Section[edit]

I have created an article for the tools section (linked from this article), so this article can focus on the organisation itself.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

News[edit]

Web sites[edit]

PDFs[edit]

Books[edit]

--The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "license changes" sections[edit]

Part of the "license changes" section seems to be duplicated verbatim, appearing twice in the article. I'll leave it to the person who made the goof to fix it. --Keith111 (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

This article could really do with a "History of Creative Commons" section. I came here just now hoping to find out when the 2.0 licences appeared, yet the date doesn't seem to be anywhere. That sort of thing. (I don't know, so can't write it myself.) Loganberry (Talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some hints at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions and http://creativecommons.org/about/history Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#Governance updates[edit]

Bissell no longer works at CC, the ccLearn "brand" is retired, and Catherine Casserly has joined the board of directors, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/20329 (I work at CC, so won't edit the article directly). --Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another update required, Annette Thomas added to the board. If nobody updates the governance section this week I'll go ahead and do it. --Mike Linksvayer (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I never did this, nor did anyone else. There's another update now outstanding, so I'm going to go ahead and bring up to date. --Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Governance section needs an update. Here I'm adding following new people who have joined the organization:

• Gwen Franck • Alex Gakuru • Eva Rogers • Claudio Ruiz • Tobias Schonwetter • Naeema Zarif • Rebecca Lendl • SooHyun Pae And Chris Sprigman is no longer board member https://creativecommons.org/about/team/ . --Asmat (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Creative Commons licenses[edit]

Is it possible for the Creative Commons Corporation to revise or amend its licenses in the same way that credit card companies are able to revise cardholder agreements? That is, could it ever change its license to, for instance, prohibit any use of works already licensed under the Creative Commons license without paying a royalty to the Creative Commons Corp.? Or is there some safeguard against that? I notice that the GFDL says "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/."[2]. I wonder who determines what is "similar in spirit" in the event of a dispute? Tisane (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC) License agreement (including CreativeCommons License) are between the Author and the User. Once in effect - they could be changed by mutual consent - not a third party (which is Creative Commons Foundation)--82.196.81.11 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a CC license is revised, this is indicated by a new version/revision number. Therefore the terms of a license described as CC-BY-SA-2.5 shall always remain the same. SV1XV (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Tisane ("flaviorosel860729") (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I formación Jose Alberto Garibaldo Flores (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property reform activism?[edit]

Does Creative Commons really have anything to do with activities described in {Intellectual property activism} template? IMHO not (my understanding is that Creative Commons operates within existing framework and does not call for any reform in this field), and I'm strongly tempted to remove this template from Creative Commons page. Ipsign (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I presently work for Creative Commons, so take with a gigantic grain of salt. Yes, CC has lots to do with many of the activities in the {Intellectual property activism} template. At least half of them -- happy to explain further if desired. Voluntary methods are reform -- direct action, rather than asking. Furthermore, CC is very involved in asking for policy change, just not via lobbying lawmakers or encouraging action on specific legislation (which the organization has very limited scope to do even if it wanted to, due to its tax status and grant contracts) -- at various levels of government, institutions, funders, and businesses/communities/platforms -- largely in the form of making various CC tools part of policy, which is a very significant reform. CC also occasionally contributes to pertinent amicus briefs. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying it, I certainly won't argue about CC position with somebody from CC (at least not until somebody else from CC disagrees :-) ). OTOH, now (after your comment and some thought) I know what I didn't like about that template - IMHO it is too much of WP:SYN (it introduces new term "Intellectual property reform" - which I didn't find elsewhere in Wikipedia), and it borderlines violating WP:SOAP. Therefore, while I won't object including (attributed) position of CC on reform into CC article, I might try arguing to abolish this whole {Intellectual property activism} template completely. Ipsign (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On related subject: I think it would be beneficial if you could take a look at Anti-copyright - I've made a severe cleanup of that page recently, and would like to confirm that description of CC position on anti-copyright is accurate. Ipsign (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made a comment on Template_talk:Intellectual_property_activism about above. Looked at Anti-copyright and made a small edit. Some of the language concerning CC is not great, but I see it is sourced from the CC FAQ, portions of which are badly in need of update. Thanks! Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and if/when you see CC FAQ changed - it would be great if you could update relevant pages :-) Ipsign (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS NOT SPAM[edit]

I added as a reference the book "Creative Commons: a user guide" by an Italian researcher and activist called Simone Aliprandi but someone here has declared it as spam. I can't understand why. Adding the only book available about the CC licenses (that is under a CC by-sa license, so downloadable totally for free and in the same "open" approach of Wikipedia) IS NOT SPAM!! This article is full of broken links and references to suspect sources (old, personal, off-point), so adding this reference will be just a good step for the article. And the author is an indipendent researcher, serving the open culture community for a long time: there is no commercial-promotional purposes in his activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.3.53 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. It is not spam. If that is spam, all the links adding would be spam. Can anybody here add the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.59.47 (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't link to it per WP:ELNO points 4,5 and 11. Spamming is a behavior: when a couple of single purpose editors appear and repeatedly add a link, that is spamming. - MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear professor MrOllie, thanks for your "useful" lesson about what is spam. But I already know what it is. So... if the problem is only that the add comes from a "single-purpose account", why don't YOU care about it? You are an expert editor, so you can add the book with no problems. You have the link, and you can verify with your own eyes that the book is relevant, non commercial, on-topic, interesting. Or is it a personal issue?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.59.47 (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we shouldn't link to it per WP:ELNO points 4,5 and 11. - MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I read all the thread... and I don't really understand the point. WP:ELNO point 4 says "Links mainly intended to promote a website": the link is not a website but a book (and a book under a CC by-sa license). WP:ELNO point 5 says "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising": www.aliprandi.org/cc-user-guide has no advertising and doesn't sell anything (the book is donwloadable for free, with a license that doesn't reserve commercial purposes to someone) WP:ELNO point 11 says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.": the author is a serious resercher devoted for lots of years in scientific dissemination and for sure he is not a newbie of the open culture philosophy. So, I think that MrOllie has a creative and personal interpretation of WP:ELNO.

Second opinion: it is indeed spam. I 100% agree with MrOllie. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Second opinion" is just a second creative and personal interpretation of WP:ELNO.

Commercial Use[edit]

Can anyone clarify if commercial use is allowed and if so to what extent under this license? I've read through it, but there doesn't appear to be any clear definitions on if anyone can use the work for commercial purposes under this license. My understanding was that you can share the images non-commercially, but any commercial usage, such as reselling the image, would require a permission from the licensee.

The reason I ask is that I have uploaded a number of images and when I see the images appearing on other websites, I am fine with that as it is non-commercial.

However, I recently discovered that a printing firm in the UK is selling the printed and framed version of this image on ebay in various sizes. The image is of a Marine Flatworm which I uploaded in 2008. I emailed them and they just referred me to this license. I guess when I uploaded the image in 2008, I had only looked at the GNU license which allows some commercial distribution in a limited way. But CC does not seem to have such restrictions. Would appreciate some advice. What rights do I have under this license to protect the commercial value of my work? Jnpet (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your talkpage to avoid clutter Ajbpearce (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a section on the page for the symbol. Here are a few attempts to reproduce it in unicode, with varying success:

 ͨͨ⃝

cͨ⃝

သ⃝

ㄸ⃝

I like the last one (hangul-based) the best. The second-to-last would be perfect if it weren't backwards.

19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal section[edit]

The legal section has some pointed POV problems (in that only the CC-Music entry seems to rest on a question concerning CC licenses at all) and the sourcing is very shoddy at best.

The legal issues here hinged on copyright law, publicity rights and other topics that did not make the CC license at all relevant for the lawsuit or decision. The most ludicrous part is where the article is claiming the court ruled that the CC license was valid even though someone hadn't assented to it, when the person saying that wa a CC spokesperson with an obvious agenda to push. Validity of the license wasn't even an issue as all enforcement fell under normal copyright rules. If the license hadn't been there normal copyright rules would have applied, so the decision in no way proves the license was treated as valid.

In order for this section to exist as a neutral encyclopedia-style coverage, we need outside, notable, reliable experts making statements that we source to them. Right now the section is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and other policies. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section is not about trying to prove or disprove anything, and when/if a part of this article does that, it should be rewritten in a neutral tone. To this goal, I rewrote a few bit about the first section and changed the subsections title. In regard to CC spokesperson and his comment, so long the statement included who said it, with any additional context that the person is a author to the CC license in that region, and if the statement was made in a reliable source, then its a viable quote to include. I rewrote the attribution to make it a bit more clear that the person worked on the CC license, and added a couple more sources like a published book(Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My IPod, Matthew Rimmer (26 Jul 2007)) and a news article (cnet). As for the other two cases, CC-Music was renamed and rewritten, and GateHouse Media was slighly changed to include how the CC licensed work was included in the court case. Of the three cases, only the first one has any decent sources. Belorn (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Swartz[edit]

Looks like he played a major role at the beginning of CC, and it would be just right to add this detail to the article. --Elitre (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

: At the NYC memorial, archived ay livestream, former CC CEO Glenn Otis Brown stated that Swarz undertook the conversion of the licences into machine-readable format. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent bulk removals[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons&diff=606033723&oldid=605473476

Any thoughts? I'm inclined to revert these recent removals, because taking out all overview of the licences themselves makes this article effectively unreadable to someone new to CC. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As "someone new to CC," I appreciate @Andy's concern. Thinking of the overall WP:Notability guideline and particularly WP:NONPROFIT, I agree that an overview of CC licensing is central to this article. And applying the WP:MOSINTRO style guideline, I think it's reasonable to expect at least some expansion on CC licensing in the article because of its prominence in the lead section. Since the Creative_Commons_license article already explores the types of CC licenses and their application, I can also see the need to be more concise about those aspects in this article. Again as a newbie, I would expect from the lead section to find in the body of the article, for examples: (1) something more on "Creative Commons licenses do not replace copyright, but are based upon it", (2) something more on the CC term "some rights reserved", and (3) a sense of where or whether CC is "expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share". —Litjade (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy, this topic was discussed amongst a few people during the OER Barn Raising, and we essentially agreed that the content that was removed could be made more concise then put back in. Litjade (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr runs away from CC Content[edit]

I am surprised this hasn't been introduced into the article. https://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/12/18/an-update-on-flickr-wall-art/ https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157649408582487/ http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/44586 Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess (2015)[edit]

I am dismayed at how prejudiced this article is against CC. It fails to mention, for example, that there is no way in the US to designate that materials are in the public domain and freely available for resuse. This is a tool that more libraries are turning to so that we can let users know when works in our collections are clearly copyright free, such as pre-modern manuscripts, which is my own area of expertise.````— Preceding unsigned comment added by St. Brigit (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's rather far on the critical side. It might be interesting to adopt some info from m:Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences, but I'm not volunteering. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

location is no longer mountain view, california[edit]

I suggest that Mountain View, California be removed as the headquarter city of Creative Commons. As of late 2014 CC has not had an office in Mountain View, California. https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43873 Tvol (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page to remove Mountain View as the headquarters. Tvol (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more creativity[edit]

I don't think that there are enough images in some articles sometimes people need to see the stuff just please give us some more images and can you please make wikipedia more exciting it's so boring you only have articles about boring stuff how about some more fun stuff and less articles just be more creative!!! Are dgfufjjfdc (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned talk page[edit]

Creative Commons Australia redirects to Creative Commons, but Talk:Creative Commons Australia still exists as a talk page with content and does not redirect to Talk:Creative Commons. —danhash (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creative Commons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WFM. Be..anyone (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

I can help in translate to arabic Frantic flame (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

It was too long for what it was meant to summarize. It was split into both what Creative Commons was and its history and founders. I think a more effective split is to introduce the article with what the license is and have a separate "History" subsection. The introduction could also tone down the technical jargon. Possibly leaving the legal terminology to a particular subsection for the formal legal powers behind CC would be more beneficial to the average user and to the specific person wanting to understand the law behind CC.

Dallasnguyen (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Dallasnguyen[reply]

Split article to make Creative Commons NonCommercial license[edit]

I moved the text here which was in Creative_Commons#Criticism_of_the_non-commercial_license to its own article at Creative Commons NonCommercial license.

I made the new article because there is enough media about the noncommercial license to justify a standalone article, and because putting all this content into either Creative Commons or Creative Commons licenses would be WP:UNDUE weight in either of those articles.

I replaced the text here with my own brief summary. Comments from anyone? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Biopact" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Biopact. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Biopact until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality[edit]

It seems to me that the article includes information, which is ballast and could be moved to the Creative Commons licenses article. The other problem I see is a citation of the high amount of criticism and thus, it seems to be a little bit POV.Juandev (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vegan_friendly_icon.svg violates a protected trademark.[edit]

https://branddb.wipo.int/en/brand/WO500000001459412?asStructure=%7B%22_id%22:%22ab07%22,%22boolean%22:%22AND%22,%22bricks%22:%5B%5D%7D The "V" with a leaf on one end is protected. Please remove this image. Lswissveg (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vegan_friendly_icon.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:3781:26A9:1:5799:3393:6DD:6684 (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirect/lost info[edit]

Founders' Copyright redirects here, but ^F the page finds no info on Founder's Copyright. Presumably it was once here, but now no longer? --2A10:3781:26A9:1:5799:3393:6DD:6684 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging Open Content Project into Creative Commons. I think the content in Open Content Project can easily be explained in the context of Creative Commons (if it isn't already), and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Creative Commons. --82.174.179.202 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wave interference USA vet and gov cheap clones cheap interference betelgeuse.. warning and communication has been blocked interfered with code1999 BT 11375533 413#81 81|413§®© POWERBJT... 76.27.128.206 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, does not seem like the topic passes the notability guidelines enough to warrant a standalone article.
(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 03:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creative_Commons&oldid=1217906244"