Revision as of 22:13, 7 October 2018 view sourceFlamerdragon23 (talk | contribs)10 edits →Definition← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:13, 7 October 2018 view source Flamerdragon23 (talk | contribs)10 edits ←Replaced content with ' Category:Digital art Content'Tag: ReplacedNext edit → |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{For|the use of free content on Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages:Free content}} |
|
|
] logo|alt=|219x219px]] |
|
|
'''Free content''', '''] content''', or '''free information''', is any kind of functional work, ], or other creative ] that meets the definition of a ] ].<ref name=":1" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Definition == |
|
|
A ''free cultural work'' (free content) is, according to the ], one that has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to: |
|
|
*use the content and benefit from using it, |
|
|
*study tpoophe content and apply what is learned, |
|
|
*make and distribute copies of the content, |
|
|
*change and improve the content and distribute these derivative works.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |url=http://freedomdefined.org/Definition |title=Definition of Free Cultural Works |version=1.1 |publisher=freedomdefined.org |author=Erik Möller, e.a. |authorlink=Erik Möller |date=2008 |accessdate=2015-04-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html |title=Free Software and Free Manuals |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |last=Stallman |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Stallman |date=November 13, 2008 |publisher=]}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Free content encompasses all works in the ] and also those ]ed works whose ]s honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above. Because the ] in most countries by default grants copyright holders ] over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work. |
|
|
|
|
|
Although there are a great many different definitions in regular everyday use, free content is legally very similar, if not like an identical twin, to ]. An analogy is the use of the rival terms free software and open source, which describe ideological differences rather than legal ones.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html |title=Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software |last=Stallman |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Stallman |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf |title=The Cultural Significance of free Software - Two Bits |first=Christpher M. |last=Kelty |publisher=] press - durham and london |year=2008 |pages=99 |quote=''Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software, and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement.''}}</ref><ref name="raymondCall">{{cite web|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html |title=Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source" |publisher=Catb.org |accessdate=2012-10-25}}</ref> |
|
|
For instance, the ]'s '']'' describes "open" as synonymous to the definition of ''free'' in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" (as also in the ] and ]).<ref> on opendefinition.org ''"This essential meaning matches that of "open" with respect to software as in the Open Source Definition and is synonymous with "free" or "libre" as in the Free Software Definition and Definition of Free Cultural Works."''</ref> For such free/open content both movements recommend the same three ]s, the ], ], and ].<ref> on opendefinition.com</ref><ref> by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (December 27th, 2013)</ref><ref> by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (October 7th, 2014)</ref><ref name="WellcomeTrustReport" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Legal matters== |
|
|
===Copyright=== |
|
|
]]] |
|
|
{{Main article|Copyright}} |
|
|
Copyright is a legal concept, which gives the author or creator of a work legal control over the ] and public performance of his or her work. In many jurisdictions, this is limited by a time period after which the works then enter the ]. Copyright laws are a balance between the rights of creators of intellectual and artistic works and the rights of others to build upon those works. During the time period of copyright the author's work may only be copied, modified, or publicly performed with the consent of the author, unless the use is a ]. |
|
|
Traditional copyright control limits the use of the work of the author to those who either pay royalties to the author for usage of the authors content, or limit their use to fair use. Secondly it limits the use of content whose author cannot be found.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ |title=The Importance of Orphan Works Legislation}}</ref> Finally it creates a perceived barrier between authors by limiting derivative works, such as ]s and collaborative content<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818801000710|title=Fair use and copyright protection: a price theory explanation |journal=International Review of Law and Economics|author=Ben Depoorter|author2= Francesco Parisi|doi=10.1016/S0144-8188(01)00071-0 |year=2002 |volume=21|issue=4|page=453}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Public domain=== |
|
|
]]] |
|
|
{{Main article|Public domain}} |
|
|
The public domain is a range of creative works whose ] has expired, or was never established; as well as ideas and facts<ref group="nb">The copyright status of uncreative aggregates of basic data may differ by region, for the USA see '']'', for ], see '']''</ref> which are ineligible for copyright. A public domain work is a work whose author has either relinquished to the public, or no longer can claim control over, the distribution and usage of the work. As such any person may manipulate, distribute, or otherwise utilize the work, without legal ramifications. A work in the public domain or released under a permissive licence may be referred to as "]".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/C/copycenter.html |title=Copycenter |last=Raymond |first=Eric S. |authorlink=Eric S. Raymond |publisher=The ] |accessdate=August 9, 2008 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Copyleft=== |
|
|
{{main|Copyleft}} |
|
|
]]] |
|
|
Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and describes the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work.<ref name="Dusollier">{{cite journal|title=Open source and copyleft. Authorship reconsidered?|author=Dusollier, S|series=Columbia journal of Law and the Arts|year=2003|volume=26|issue=296}}</ref> The aim of copyleft is to use the legal framework of copyright to enable non-author parties to be able to reuse and, in many licensing schemes, modify content that is created by an author. Unlike works in the public domain, the author still maintains copyright over the material, however the author has granted a non-exclusive license to any person to distribute, and often modify, the work. Copyleft licenses require that any ]s be distributed under the same terms, and that the original copyright notices be maintained. |
|
|
A symbol commonly associated with copyleft is a reversal of the ], facing the other way; the opening of the C points left rather than right. Unlike the copyright symbol, the copyleft symbol does not have a codified meaning.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hall |first=G. Brent |year=2008 |publisher=Springer |title=Open Source Approaches in Spatial Data Handling |page=29 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=JZNuu8XODQMC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=copyleft+symbol+legal+meaning |isbn=3-540-74830-X |accessdate=March 22, 2009}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Usage== |
|
|
Projects that provide free content exist in several areas of interest, such as software, academic literature, general literature, music, images, video, and ]. |
|
|
Technology has reduced the cost of publication and reduced the entry barrier sufficiently to allow for the production of widely disseminated materials by individuals or small groups. Projects to provide free literature and multimedia content have become increasingly prominent owing to the ease of dissemination of materials that is associated with the development of computer technology. Such dissemination may have been too costly prior to these technological developments. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Media=== |
|
|
]]] |
|
|
In media, which includes textual, audio, and visual content, free licensing schemes such as some of the licenses made by ] have allowed for the dissemination of works under a clear set of legal permissions. Not all of the Creative Commons’ licenses are entirely free: their permissions may range from very liberal general redistribution and modification of the work to a more restrictive redistribution-only licensing. Since February 2008, Creative Commons licenses which are entirely free carry a badge indicating that they are "approved for free cultural works".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8051 |title=Approved for Free Cultural Works |accessdate=March 22, 2009| last=Linksvayer |first=Mike |authorlink=Mike Linksvayer |date= February 20, 2008| publisher=]}}</ref> ] exist which exclusively feature free material and provide content such as photographs, ], music,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://irate.sourceforge.net/ |title=iRate Radio |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |publisher=] |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228222010/http://irate.sourceforge.net/ |archivedate=February 28, 2009 |df= }}</ref> and literature,.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/Gutenberg:No_Cost_or_Freedom%3F |title=Gutenberg:No Cost or Freedom? |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |date=April 23, 2007 |publisher=]}}</ref> |
|
|
While extensive reuse of free content from one website in another website is legal, it is usually not sensible because of the ] problem. ] is amongst the most well known databases of user uploaded free content on the web. While the vast majority of content on Misplaced Pages is free content, some copyrighted material is hosted under ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Software=== |
|
|
] logo]] |
|
|
] logo]] |
|
|
{{main article|Free and open-source software}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
], which is also often referred to as ] and ], is a maturing technology with major companies utilising free software to provide both services and technology to both end users and technical consumers. The ease of dissemination has allowed for increased modularity, which allows for smaller groups to contribute to projects as well as simplifying collaboration. |
|
|
Open source development models have been classified as having a similar peer-recognition and collaborative benefit incentives that are typified by more classical fields such as scientific research, with the social structures that result from this incentive model decreasing production cost.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/herkia/kava/Seminnarit/MI_mustonen.pdf |title=Copyleft – the economics of Linux and other open source software |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |version=Discussion Paper No. 493 |last=Mustonen |first=Mikko |publisher=Department of Economics, ] |format=PDF}}</ref> |
|
|
Given sufficient interest in a software component, by using ] distribution methods, distribution costs of software may be reduced, removing the burden of infrastructure maintenance from developers. As distribution resources are simultaneously provided by consumers, these software distribution models are scalable, that is the method is feasible regardless of the number of consumers. In some cases, free software vendors may use peer-to-peer technology as a method of dissemination.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/28/33/44/PDF/RR-6519.pdf |title=The Practice of Free and Open Source Software Processes |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |volume=N° 6519 |issue=April 2008 |date=May 29, 2008 |version=inria-00274193, version 2 |author1=Pawlak, Michel |author2=Bryce, Ciarán |author3=Laurière, Stéphane |journal=Rapport de recherche |publisher=] (INRIA) |issn=0249-6399 |format=PDF}}</ref> |
|
|
In general, project hosting and code distribution is not a problem for the most of free projects as ] offer them these services free. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Engineering and technology=== |
|
|
] logo]] |
|
|
Free content principles have been translated into fields such as engineering, where designs and engineering knowledge can be readily shared and duplicated, in order to reduce overheads associated with project development. ] principles can be applied in engineering and technological applications, with projects in ], small-scale manufacture,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/03/04/reprap-open-source-3d-printer-masses |title=RepRap: An open-source 3D printer for the masses |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |last=Hendry |first=Andrew |date=March 4, 2008 |work=] Australia |publisher=]}}</ref> the automotive industry,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.heise.de/tr/Das-offenste-aller-Autos--/artikel/68663/ |title=The most open of all cars |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |last=Honsig |first= Markus |date=January 25, 2006 |work=] |publisher=] |language=German}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/drive/australian-drive-for-green-commuter-cars-20100613-y64q.html|title=Australian drive for green commuter cars|date=14 June 2010|work=The Sydney Morning Herald |location=Sydney |accessdate=5 June 2015}}</ref> and even agricultural areas.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2005/artspdf/dec0501.pdf |title=Open-source Agriculture |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |last=Stewart Jr. |first=C. Neal |date=December 2005 |work= ISB News Report |publisher=Information Systems for Biotechnology (ISB) |format=PDF}}</ref> |
|
|
Technologies such as distributed manufacturing can allow ] and ] techniques to be able to develop small-scale production of components for the development of new, or repair of existing, devices. Rapid fabrication technologies underpin these developments, which allow end users of technology to be able to construct devices from pre-existing blueprints, using software and manufacturing hardware to convert information into physical objects. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Academia=== |
|
|
]]] |
|
|
{{main article|Open access (publishing)}} |
|
|
In academic work, the majority of works are not free, although the percentage of works that are open access is growing rapidly. ] refers to online ] outputs that are free of all restrictions on access (e.g. access tolls) and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions).<ref name="earlham.edu">Suber, Peter. . Earlham.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.</ref> Authors may see open access publishing as a method of expanding the audience that is able to access their work to allow for greater impact of the publication, or may support it for ideological reasons.<ref>{{cite web|title=Open access self-archiving: An author study|url=http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/1/jisc2.pdf|author1=Alma Swan |author2=Sheridan Brown | date = May 2005 | publisher = Key Perspectives Limited}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url= http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/andrew/ |title=Trends in Self-Posting of Research Material Online by Academic Staff |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |last=Andrew |first=Theo |date=October 30, 2003 |journal=Ariadne |issue= 37 | publisher=] |issn=1361-3200}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf |title=JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey Report |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |author=Key Perspectives |publisher=] (JISC) |format=PDF}}</ref> Open access publishers such as ] and ] provide capacity for review and publishing of free works; though such publications are currently more common in science than humanities. |
|
|
Various funding institutions and governing research bodies have ] that academics must produce their works to be open-access, in order to qualify for funding, such as the ], ] (effective 2016) and the EU (effective 2020).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/partnerships/_files/funding_policy.pdf |title=NHMRC Partnership Projects – Funding Policy |accessdate=March 22, 2009 |last=Haslam |first=Maryanne |publisher=] (NHMRC) |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090317204124/http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/partnerships/_files/funding_policy.pdf |archivedate=March 17, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-05-022.html|title= Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research | accessdate=July 12, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/rcukopenaccesspolicy-pdf/|title=Open access - RCUK Policy and revised guidance }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9526-2016-INIT/en/pdf|title= Outcome of Proceedings, 9526/16 RECH 208 TELECOM 100, The transition towards an Open Science System }}</ref> At an institutional level some universities, such as the ] (MIT), have adopted open access publishing by default by introducing their own mandates.<ref>{{cite web|title=MIT faculty open access to their scholarly articles|date=20 March 2009|url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/open-access-0320.html|publisher=MIT news}}</ref> Some mandates may permit delayed publication and may charge researchers for open access publishing.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mic.sgmjournals.org/misc/self_archiving.dtl|title=Policy of the Society for General Microbiology towards author self-archiving on PubMed Central and institutional and other repositories|accessdate=April 10, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/authorresources/onlineopen.html|title=OnlineOpen|accessdate=April 10, 2009}}</ref> |
|
|
] publication has been seen as a method of reducing costs associated with information retrieval in research, as universities typically pay to subscribe for access to content that is published through traditional means<ref name="WellcomeTrustReport">{{cite web|title=Costs and business models in scientific research publishing: A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust|url=http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtd003184.pdf|accessdate=May 23, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Libraries face higher costs for academic journals |last=Mayor |first=Susan |date=April 19, 2003 |journal=]: British Medical Journal |publisher=] |volume=326 |issue=7394 |page=840 |pmc=1125769}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ams.org/membership/journal-survey.html|title=AMS Journal price survey|accessdate=May 23, 2009}}</ref> whilst improving journal quality by discouraging the submission of research articles of reduced quality.<ref name="WellcomeTrustReport"/> |
|
|
Subscriptions for non-free content journals may be expensive for universities to purchase, though the article are written and peer-reviewed by academics themselves at no cost to the publisher. This has led to disputes between publishers and some universities over subscription costs, such as the one which occurred between the ].<ref>{{cite web |title=Response from the University of California to the Public statement from Nature Publishing Group regarding subscription renewals at the California Digital Library |date=June 10, 2010 |url=http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/UC_Response_to_Nature_Publishing_Group.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100626082706/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/UC_Response_to_Nature_Publishing_Group.pdf |archive-date=June 26, 2010 |dead-url=yes |access-date=September 13, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1013152.ece |title=Boycott 'greedy' journal publishers, say scientists | location=London | work=The Times | first=Nigel | last=Hawkes | date=November 10, 2003 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429061407/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1013152.ece |archive-date=April 29, 2011 |dead-url=yes |access-date=September 13, 2015}}</ref> |
|
|
For teaching purposes, some universities, including MIT, provide freely available course content, such as lecture notes, video resources and tutorials. This content is distributed via Internet resources to the general public. Publication of such resources may be either by a formal institution-wide program,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/about/index.htm|title=About OpenCourseWare|accessdate=April 10, 2009}}</ref> or alternately via informal content provided by individual academics or departments. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Legislation=== |
|
|
Any country has its own law and legal system, sustained by its legislation, a set of law-documents — documents containing ] ], usually ] and created by ]s. In a ], each law-document is published as ], is in principle a free content; but in general there are no explicit license attributed for each law-document, so the license must be interpreted, is a '']''. |
|
|
Only few countries have explicit licenses in its law-documents, as the UK's ] (a ] compatible license). |
|
|
In the other countries, the ''implied license'' comes from its proper rules (general laws and rules about copyright in government works). The automatic protection provided by ] not apply to law-documents: Article 2.4 excludes the official texts from the automatic protection. |
|
|
It is also possible to "inherit" the license from context. The set of country's law-documents is made available through national repositories. Examples of law-document open repositories: ], ], ]. In general a law-document is offered in more than one (open) official version, but the main one is that published by a ]. So, law-documents can eventually inherit license expressed by the repository or by the gazette that contains it. |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Notes== |
|
|
{{Reflist|group="nb"}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{Reflist|30em}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Further reading == |
|
|
* {{cite book|author1=D. Atkins |author2=J. S. Brown |author3=A. L. Hammond |title= A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. |publisher=Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation |date =February 2007|url=http://cohesion.rice.edu/Conferences/Hewlett/emplibrary/A%20Review%20of%20the%20Open%20Educational%20Resources%20(OER)%20Movement_BlogLink.pdf }} |
|
|
* OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: ''''. 2007, {{ISBN|92-64-03174-X}}. |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
* – A definition of "free content" or "free cultural works" similar to the free software definition |
|
|
* "" (PDF) (Peter B. Meyer; August 4, 2003) – article on several U.S.-oriented historical examples of free content in technology |
|
|
* – project by the ] which provides a definition of "open" suitable for content and data |
|
|
* on ] |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Intellectual property activism}} |
|
|
{{Open navbox}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Free Content}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
] |
|
] |
|
] |