So, again on Facebook, a discussion about Creative Commons licensing and the problem (both real and imagined) of using another person's copyrighted work without permission. As I've written before, this unauthorized, unlicensed use has a special place in our history (The 1811 "pirate edition" of the Treatise on Atonement), and that our forebears made a similar, liberal license provision almost 80 years ago.
I've moved to licensing particular posts and resources to highlight that they are available under that license. Let's be clear: a lack of a Creative Commons license doesn't affect your fair use. (Indeed, my "flaming nectarine" is, I contend, fair use parody. I do have a plan when I write.) Or I could make a particular (just to you!) license for the work. Or I could take a request to license something.
But it does mean everything else isn't objectively and permissively licensed. This is the kind of ambiguity kills innovation and the measure of use the creator often intends. But one licence doesn't fit all situations.
One example. The CC-BY-ND-NC is the most restrictive "liberal" license; that is attribution, no derivitive works and no commercial use. It is, in essence, "pass around and post" permission. Not ideal, but the de facto standard for most preachers, with the understanding that a CC-BY-ND-NC sermon could be repreached as-is and without pay. (It's the lack of attribution that I hear caeses grief.) But it couldn't be translated, the preaching couldn't be made into a recording or (to stretch the point) not be made into a screenplay under that license.
A make-it-your-own guide, say for an RE program or HR manual, is a derivative work, so the no-derivitives plank wouldn't make sense. A non-commercial provision would make publishers shy away. And so forth.
It's interesting. Reviewing by use statistics, the two posts that get regular, evergreen attention are for an image of a seven-pointed star to be use as a non-cross emblem for Christians, and a Sunday-only calendar for worship planning. (I'll go back and add a public domain declaration, not available then.)
And, oh, I drew up a public-domain flaming chalice image for anyone to use a few years ago. High time to get those licenses set.
I also licensed my deck from my presentation at the UU Christian Fellowship Revival a couple of years ago.
But every once in a while, in UU circles, I run into an ad-hoc semi-permissive license. The intent is good, but confusing and ambiguous.
The rights around the new UUA logo is a case in point, and its ambiguity and tentativeness wouldn't fill me with confidence if I was in a congregation and was about to commit to a design re-do. Can you remix the logo for congregational (not the UUA proper) use? Or the background wallpaper-like image? What about applying the color scheme or wordmark into an existing congregational design?
The advice -- "Congregations are welcome to download and use the new symbol for their own outreach purposes" -- doesn't really help in these cases.