Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

" ... 1. When you submit or post material, you must be the owner of the content or have express permission from the content owner to share their work. When content is uploaded to dotSUB you must choose a Creative Commons license or choose "other" or "all rights reserved". By choosing "other" or "all rights reserved". you indicate that the content will be posted under terms other than Creative Commons licenses. If the content is licensed under terms that do not permit derivative works to be made from that content, by which we mean to indicate permission to overlay subtitled files on top of the original digital files and/or to distribute that content via an mpeg4, do not upload the file to dotSUB. If the content has previously been licensed with a Creative Commons license, dotSUB will acknowledge the terms under which the content was originally licensed. Content uploaded using a Creative Commons or other license is subject to the specific terms that the license grants. 2. You, as a content owner, grant to dotSUB the royalty-free, perpetual, revocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, translate, distribute, and display the content (in whole or in part) worldwide, to create derivative works and/or to incorporate it in other media or technology. 3. The rights to the translations done by volunteers are always owned by the translators who do the volunteer translations on videos that reside solely on dotSUB. The following terms reflect the different use scenarios. We have tried to word this in the clearest non-legal language. We reserve the right to modify these terms, as necessary, but will inform the dotSUB community immediately if we choose to do so. You may not use this Site or the materials on it in any manner that violates the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark rights, patent rights, contract rights, or any other rights belonging to the content's owner. We reserve the right, at any time to suspend, cancel, or term

"Though Open Access publication and Creative Commons licensing were not mentioned as issues by the people who participated in the DICE survey, several replies deal with germane issues: see cases THETA-MU in the "Per cominciare..." section of the handbook. The concern about protection expressed in THETA, IOTA and KAPPA is answered in Chapter B [check "B" in final version - calmansi calmansi just now] of this handbook: works such as those mentioned in these replies are automatically protected by copyright law once they have been expressed, and this protection also obtains for works expressed in digital form, and offered online. Open Access publishing and of Creative Commons licensing are particular uses of copyright law. As we shall see in what follows, they can help towards the communal sharing wished for by the author of LAMBDA, and the literature about their implementation can be of use in solving the conundrums of third parties' rights evoked by the author of MU. Open Access The main Swiss higher education authorities have signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access. This is a great progress for research. It also means that all publications by teachers and researchers - and all theses by students - of Swiss academic and higher education institutions must be made available in Open Access repositories, following the rules stated in by the Berlin Declaration: 1. The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. 2. A complete

"Misrepresentation One of the greatest concerns for authors who create works of opinion and place them under alternative copyright licences is that the licence will allow their opinions or arguments to be misrepresented. The Creative Commons Attribution-No-Derivatives licence appears to protect against misrepresentation by ensuring that the author's original expression cannot be altered with the production of Derivative works. But I would argue that ND cannot protect against mis-representation any better than using a copyleft licence such as Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike, and that copyleft licences are also better for freedom of speech." (integrate in CC chapter of handbook?)

"...If rights remain as tightly controlled and as expensive as they are now, nonfiction will be the province of the entirely new or the overly familiar. Dazzling books with newly created art, text and multimedia will far outnumber works filled with historical materials. Only a few well-heeled companies will have the wherewithal to create gee-whiz multimedia book-like products that require permissions, and these projects will most likely focus on highly popular subjects. History's outsiders and untold stories will be left behind. We treat copyrights as individual possessions, jewels that exist entirely by themselves. I'm obviously sympathetic to that point of view. But source material also takes on another life when it's repurposed. It becomes part of the flow, the narration, the interweaving of text and art in books and e-books. It's essential that we take this into account as we re-imagine permissions in a digital age. When we have a new model for permissions, we will have new media. Then all of us - authors, readers, new-media innovators, rights holders - will really see the stories that words and images can tell. "