Re: [nznog] Licence NZNOG video recordings
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/7a7dd180b7a85ef6c90a438a470b2987.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
At 01:48 p.m. 2/12/2014, Nick wrote:
A woefully inadequate search of the archives does not produce an answer to this, so tempting all fate, I submit a possibly list relevant query...
What is the copyright licencing on the r2 recordings of NZNOG? Each page clearly displays their copyright, which is fair and makes sense, but there appears to be no distribution licence (eg Creative Commons?)
The copyright is held by R2 (2011) Ltd and all rights are reserved. We use that statement whenever a client fails to advise what rights they would like to assert. This is to protect the client's interests despite their ignorance - if that makes sense. We have only 2 clients who (usually) advise what rights to assert and they are usually a form of CC. On the funny side - even Creative Commons NZ don't advise, even after 7 years of waiting, so we hold the rights on their launch in NZ ! http://www.r2.co.nz/20071027/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2de8fd11bf59d39a4c12b8bd4b0e93c1.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Comments from the community on what form of license might be appropriate?
Comments on leaving the existing ones ARR and making new ones as
something different (CC)?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Richard Naylor
At 01:48 p.m. 2/12/2014, Nick wrote:
A woefully inadequate search of the archives does not produce an answer to this, so tempting all fate, I submit a possibly list relevant query...
What is the copyright licencing on the r2 recordings of NZNOG? Each page clearly displays their copyright, which is fair and makes sense, but there appears to be no distribution licence (eg Creative Commons?)
The copyright is held by R2 (2011) Ltd and all rights are reserved.
We use that statement whenever a client fails to advise what rights they would like to assert. This is to protect the client's interests despite their ignorance - if that makes sense. We have only 2 clients who (usually) advise what rights to assert and they are usually a form of CC.
On the funny side - even Creative Commons NZ don't advise, even after 7 years of waiting, so we hold the rights on their launch in NZ ! http://www.r2.co.nz/20071027/
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b5f1567b677d729395d8c1d64073d09f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Basically the community needs to decide whether theyre happy for folks to make commercial use of NZNOG content (excluding -NC) or make derivative content (-ND). Personally the talks ive done I would prefer to see as CC-BY-ND and I could probably also assert NC as my limited exposure as a presenter at NZNOG has not usually been commercially rooted. However those tied up with commercial organisations presenting at NZNOG may want to ensure that Commercial use is OK. In which case we probably end up with CC-BY or CC-BY-ND depending on whether derivative works should be OK or not. Also perhaps use -SA isntead of ND so that derivative works are OK, so long as they are shared under the same license. No doubt there are others more learned in this on-list who will have an opinion. For reference the Linux Conf Au 2014 keynotes are specifically published CC-BY-SA. Mark. On 2/12/2014 3:25 p.m., Dean Pemberton wrote:
Comments from the community on what form of license might be appropriate? Comments on leaving the existing ones ARR and making new ones as something different (CC)?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Richard Naylor
wrote: At 01:48 p.m. 2/12/2014, Nick wrote:
A woefully inadequate search of the archives does not produce an answer to this, so tempting all fate, I submit a possibly list relevant query...
What is the copyright licencing on the r2 recordings of NZNOG? Each page clearly displays their copyright, which is fair and makes sense, but there appears to be no distribution licence (eg Creative Commons?)
The copyright is held by R2 (2011) Ltd and all rights are reserved.
We use that statement whenever a client fails to advise what rights they would like to assert. This is to protect the client's interests despite their ignorance - if that makes sense. We have only 2 clients who (usually) advise what rights to assert and they are usually a form of CC.
On the funny side - even Creative Commons NZ don't advise, even after 7 years of waiting, so we hold the rights on their launch in NZ ! http://www.r2.co.nz/20071027/
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/7a7dd180b7a85ef6c90a438a470b2987.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
At 03:37 p.m. 2/12/2014, Mark Foster wrote:
Basically the community needs to decide whether theyre happy for folks to make commercial use of NZNOG content (excluding -NC) or make derivative content (-ND).
no - each client who paid for the job is the person who advises us. Over the 10 years that has varied with R2 sponsoring quite heavily as well.
For reference the Linux Conf Au 2014 keynotes are specifically published CC-BY-SA.
LCA-2010 is held by R2 http://www.r2.co.nz/20100118/ :-) I'd leave the dogs sleeping, but make a resolution for going forward. That can be a community decision. Or you can ask each presenter to advise on their "rights". I'm currently uploading a different conference where some speakers withheld recording rights. We record them anyway and just hold the footage. They usually ask to see it afterwards. Some speakers hold recording rights forgetting that we are live streaming. Its a confused world. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that if a speaker withholds right, you take them off the programme. Theres no difference between speaking to an audience in a room or on the web. Its an audience and you are "broadcasting" your talk. But it might just be me getting "old and grumpy" (tm) What is worth noting, is that for a typical conference with 1-200 attendees, where its streamed or recorded, the online audience is often much greater than the room audience. So you need to up the production values, especially lighting and sound. The room audience really becomes the "studio audience".
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/06d3f4f0a82dd00a84f8f8fabc8e537d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 16:01 +1300, Richard Naylor wrote:
LCA-2010 is held by R2 http://www.r2.co.nz/20100118/ :-)
Hmm, should be CC BY-SA 3.0, that's what our speakers agreed to when they submitted their proposals to speak. Copyright ownership is an open question I guess.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that if a speaker withholds right, you take them off the programme. Theres no difference between speaking to an audience in a room or on the web. Its an audience and you are "broadcasting" your talk. But it might just be me getting "old and grumpy" (tm)
+1. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | linux.conf.au 2015 New Zealand's only Cloud: | BeAwesome in Auckland, NZ https://catalyst.net.nz/cloud | http://lca2015.linux.org.au
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4fa886e15ac1c9a1fed434a4c1101f60.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 03/12/2014 12:17, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 16:01 +1300, Richard Naylor wrote:
LCA-2010 is held by R2 http://www.r2.co.nz/20100118/ :-)
Hmm, should be CC BY-SA 3.0, that's what our speakers agreed to when they submitted their proposals to speak. Copyright ownership is an open question I guess.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that if a speaker withholds right, you take them off the programme. Theres no difference between speaking to an audience in a room or on the web. Its an audience and you are "broadcasting" your talk. But it might just be me getting "old and grumpy" (tm)
+1.
There's a phrase we have in the IETF "Note Well" that is compulsory reading when registering for a meeting: "A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public." I don't think we've ever had anyone decline to speak as a result. Brian
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b7485fc8c53634ad368e4c779a5a58da.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 3/12/2014 4:20 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/12/2014 12:17, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 16:01 +1300, Richard Naylor wrote:
LCA-2010 is held by R2 http://www.r2.co.nz/20100118/ :-) Hmm, should be CC BY-SA 3.0, that's what our speakers agreed to when they submitted their proposals to speak. Copyright ownership is an open question I guess.
It is probably worth looking at CC BY-SA 4.0 for future works. The 4.0 license stream brings international legal compliance (for Internet use). AYJ
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e2cc2f0e2348266c536838e4e9f67a74.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sorry for the question but, What exactly is r2?? I was reading the about page at: http://www.r2.co.nz/about.htm and I am still unsure about what content the tthread is about. The video recordings? like if someone wants to copy them or other content such as code? Thanks, Eliezer On 12/02/2014 04:08 AM, Richard Naylor wrote:
At 01:48 p.m. 2/12/2014, Nick wrote:
A woefully inadequate search of the archives does not produce an answer to this, so tempting all fate, I submit a possibly list relevant query...
What is the copyright licencing on the r2 recordings of NZNOG? Each page clearly displays their copyright, which is fair and makes sense, but there appears to be no distribution licence (eg Creative Commons?)
The copyright is held by R2 (2011) Ltd and all rights are reserved.
We use that statement whenever a client fails to advise what rights they would like to assert. This is to protect the client's interests despite their ignorance - if that makes sense. We have only 2 clients who (usually) advise what rights to assert and they are usually a form of CC.
On the funny side - even Creative Commons NZ don't advise, even after 7 years of waiting, so we hold the rights on their launch in NZ ! http://www.r2.co.nz/20071027/
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUfuxlAAoJENxnfXtQ8ZQUUfoH/3NU4mT3P0HjJHF1emv+MZ0H UbnXgZ5FoOw51gyHnvEf0LdC9RqyqHJEmsmpLapvdVXsYc9npWfZO89IsgX4LlEo z1ztG3Ym0zb3ZQeWGvF+05nEQKCzdE99uNdaJmkmQFfLGzym81Byytfzg8cq6K37 L8KokijAEsJR2dFoO1H462ItLZoIx/Ez5yGwkHhZawV/4FqYcap8a41J7oeip5/3 4RPfaqmqK7GhPm+lRIE3+pM0gOZgaKzMdiO3tSzJlKDouD2yITjrvwq51txsW7xo g8RPZOt/KhriDzGlIHtzI3gxOdL+clM0bPknWquIVIYL0sk4xOJsQcO0gS6kd0A= =kd23 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (7)
-
Andrew Ruthven
-
Brian E Carpenter
-
Dean Pemberton
-
Eliezer Croitoru
-
Mark Foster
-
Richard Naylor
-
TreeNet Admin