Cameron Neylon
Someone hates social media... - Benjamin Tseng
I really like the concept of these images, but I am concerned that you have used a CC attribution license on flickr. Firstly, I am not sure if you can really CC the images that are derived from YouTube and Twitter logos in this way. Secondly, the CC license requires that if anyone wants to use them in their talks they have to put an attribution to you on the slide. Do you really want to require this? - Matt Leifer
All I'm doing at the moment really is to put some ideas out there as to what people could do. The social media images are part of a collection that is described as "free for use". If there is any copyright in what I've done (which frankly is pretty doubtful) with the collection of things then that doesn't necessarily make any difference to the original rights which flow through. And I only use CC-BY as a default on Flickr because it is the most liberal licence available there. If people want to use them I will stick them up somewhere with an explicit ccZero licence but as far as I am I will waive any and all rights to the composition. The point was more to encourage the discussion. Ideally one would build tool that let someone configure a panel that said what they wanted - Cameron Neylon
That sounds fair enough. Where do the social media images come from by the way? - Matt Leifer
Oh good point. I got them from here - - Cameron Neylon
Since the facts of a presentation are not copyrightable, maybe the text should read more in the direction "You are kindly asked to not (immediately) blog, twitter etc. this presentation"? And maybe also make the logos more suggestive of "request" rather than prohibition? (at least for the ones that are transcription rather than recording) - Anders Norgaard
I thought about wording it "Please do not..." but decided against because it seemed somewhat unclear. There would be an argument that such a panel forms the equivalent of "click wrap" agreement (by staying and listening you are agreeing to my conditions) so copyright per se isn't necessarily the only right or limitation. How would show a request rather than a prohibition? Red circle? - Cameron Neylon
"Greyed out"? - Anders Norgaard
IANAL, but isn't emulating "click wrap" agreements a really bad idea? The EULAs of software are pretty much universally despised and ignored. And your sensible point about licensing of data - that assuming rights in databases of facts is on shaky ground must equally apply here? - Anders Norgaard
Probably, and obviously I'm not a lawyer either, but I just meant to make the point that copyright per se wasn't the only potential right that a presenter held. There are also arguably performance rights in any audio and video, broadcast rights in some jurisdictions, and potentially other contractual rights. The reason I said "not permitted" was simply that it is (hopefully) clearcut, whereas "please don't" implies that you expect people to any case I wouldn't use this one myself so feel free to adjust the versions I've put up - Cameron Neylon has an open license option, pretty mucht he only restriction is you can't use the images for porn... - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces
I agree that audio and video is different from transcription (twitter, blog, etc.) so it may also be worth trying to distinguish. Oh, well. - Anders Norgaard
Wrt. blob vs live-blog on one of those images: I don't see much of a difference between live-blogging during (or right after) a presentation at a meeting on one hand, and blogging about some topic right after you get home from the conference. If people presenting work wish to limit the audience in terms of how they can or cannot discuss what they are presenting with, then why are they presenting in the first place? Ban on video or photo, sure, I can understand that. The other stuff sounds like a gag order to me. - 'Mummi' Thorisson
Also, if a conference I was interested on attending stated on its website that at any or all talks I could expect to be 'gagged' in some way or another, I just wouldn't go :( - 'Mummi' Thorisson