Can CC-BY-SA images be used on HubPages?

1. 68

   simeonvisserposted 13 years ago

   I'm wondering if CC-BY-SA images can be used on HubPages? I'm in particular concerned about the ShareAlike (SA) part of the license which says that
   
   "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."
   
   Now the question is: am I building upon that work if I use it in my hub? If we look at the CC FAQ their answer seems to be "yes": http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequen … as_well.3F
   
   But at flickr.com someone made a good point in saying that including an image in an article is not quite creating a derivative work of that image: http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/128689/
   
   But the issue pops up at various places on the internet, such as reusing Flickr images and the use of such images in Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a conclusive answer to whether CC-BY-SA images can safely be used.
   
   Should we err on the safe side and only use Creative Commons images that do not include ShareAlike?

   replyreport
2. 70

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   Your question confuses me.
   
   You ask about CC-BY-SA
   
   CC= Creative Commons
   BY = Attribution Only
   SA= ShareAlike
   
   (added for others who may come into the discussion)
   
   So why are you focusing on whether it is a derivative? your welcome to share/use the image! the original or a derivative as long as its attributed.
   
   full details of license:
   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
   
   
   "    * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
       * to Remix — to adapt the work
       *
   
   Under the following conditions:
   
       *
   
         Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
   
         Attribute this work:
         Information
         What does "Attribute this work" mean?
         The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.
       *
   
         Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. "
   ---------------------------------------
   (if you use a cc image and alter it you must also share YOUR derivative under the same spirit and license as the original work is shared with you)
   
   {There doesn't seem to be a conclusive answer to whether CC-BY-SA images can safely be used.} - Nonsense -
   
   
   It seems your question is really..
   
   "If I use a Creative Commons licensed image with the sharealike requirement does my article (textual content) then become "shareable" under that CC license?'
   
   Of course not.. no more than using another image within the same page would do the same, the image is its own independent  file and idea.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your response. Yes, that was indeed my question.. does the article also become shareable under CC-BY-SA? But it seems the second part of the FAQ answer does indeed give the answer "no".
      
      "If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a “collective work” (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection."
      
      So CC-BY-SA can indeed by used because an article can be considered a collective work. Nice, that means I can indeed use the images I'd like to use

      replyreport
3. 70

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   sorry,on second glance, I dont really like the tone of my response, but I didnt figure out the actual question until reading your included links and then had already written the first part.
   
   I didnt see any reason to think a collective work or a writers intellectual property would somehow be superseded by an independent images license, especially one so loose as the one you were questioning.
   
   Glad you found an authoritative response and its commendable that you took the time to be so thorough - its a rare trait among online writers/publishers!

   replyreport
   1. 68

      simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No worries!
      
      
      
      Yes, licensing can be a tricky issue, in particular when the terminology is unclear. What does a "work of authorship" mean or a "derivative work" and words like that. I'm not a lawyer so it's always a hassle to figure it out
      
      
      
      I've been doing some work behind the scenes on Wikipedia and licensing problems occur quite frequently with new image uploads. In particular on Wikipedia it's important that articles are kept free from non-free images. Sometimes people upload images that can be used freely but not for commerial use - that's just not free enough for Wikipedia. That's why I'm checking the licenses of my images on my hubs to make sure they can be used.

      replyreport
4. 95

   melbelposted 13 years ago

   How do you cite both the license AND the original work with the picture capsule?

   replyreport