Talk:List of major Creative Commons licensed works

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old comments[edit]

I see a list much like this (but more organized) on the Creative Commons page. Is this page really needed? 198.53.144.114 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm personally not convinced of the need for this page either. It's information that can easily be found elsewhere (http://search.creativecommons.org, for one) in a more accessible and concise format.Opcws (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page is needed to show some remarkable CC content, but the merge of this and List of projects using Creative Commons licenses is certainly needed I guess because they serve exact the same purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fopper (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the instructions for sharing works using CC-BY licensed youtube clips. Don't blame me for this, I am sure others have worked it out. I predict an explosion in the number of works available, making a list unwieldy.--Tradimus (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal[edit]

The page has my vote as being pointless as well,. just about anyone can add stuff to the license, though if anything Two Kinds deserves a place on the list. But realistically, 1-2 go on, 3-10 more want on, 20 others follow, at some point we have to realize there is just too much "out there" to bother putting on a list like this. So, where do you stop, or where do you simply kill the whole thing off? After all plain copyright items don't have a list either. Wouldn't it simply be - easier to replace any links to this page with the link above, showing the search.creativecommons.org link instead? -- Zurgat - 22:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.95.1 (talk)

Edit Request[edit]

Unglue.it[edit]

Proposed addition: Unglue.it - Over 1200 Creative-Commons licensed ebooks

Openly (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saylor.org[edit]

Proposed addition: Saylor.org - Peer-reviewed college courses and textbooks

Hello, I'd like to ask that someone please add The Saylor Foundation to this list. The website is clearly listed as using CC-BY licenses, and there is also this article that mentions the use of CC. I am making a request (rather than an edit) because I am currently employed by the foundation, as noted on my userpage. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Non-notable. Woz2 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke too soon. Stay tuned... Woz2 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sorry ... done... Woz2 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
some of the musicalbums shown are not under creative commons licence. It just have a creative commons licence for the songtextes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyypow (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IranNewsPaper.ir[edit]

Please remove this website, This newspaper is heavily dependent on government of Iran as well as Hezbollah. Heavily contains false information and censorship. Very offensive towards ethnic groups like Baháʼí Faith, Encourages aggression towards them and not following human rights in any manners (I.E supporting of enforcing Hiab on women and public execution). Many of it's authors and sponsors are recognized as "Terrorist" by U.S government and many countries. Other examples are: 1- regular use of "Death to united states" or "Sahyonism (Isreal)" statement 2- Supporting / spreading lies about Iran's mass killing of protests 188.212.243.158 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nom[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works available under a Creative Commons license for a discussion on whether or not to delete this page (and for a suggestion to use the category mechanism instead). Woz2 (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable works, etc[edit]

I'd like to comment here about what should or should not constitute a notable work. When I went through the purge prior to the AfD closing, one of my cutting criteria was that a work which was notable (WP:N) should be distinguished from an organization which produces a notable work. For example, pre-purge, the listing for the Saylor Foundation was also listed. I removed this, as the work itself was not notable. This was readded after the purge.

Should my criterion stand, and have the list item for the Saylor Foundation removed (and others as can be discussed), or should that include as a notable work? (See also the discussion and subsequent merge of List of projects using Creative Commons licenses.) --Izno (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I (re)-added Saylor Foundation after your welcomed purge because of a (to my way of thinking, valid) Requested edit. I'm not sure of that the distinction between a collection of works by a notable organization and an individual work should cause exclusion from this list. In my judgement it deserved a place on this list, but please feel free to revert if you differ. Woz2 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this, I thought it might make sense to start a Publishers section for publishers which do all or mostly/partially CC-licensed works. I'd say there are some notable ones in that categoy eg OpenStax, Siyavula, and CK-12 for just a few. The hard part would be where to draw the line, eg: if Pearson releases one CC-licensed textbook, but the other 10,000 they publish are All Rights Reserved, should they be listed? Maybe just the book in that case (if notable) but, again, where's the line? Greg G (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

What exactly are the criteria for being on this list? There are musicians (and presumably others) that have Wikipedia pages (and those "notable" in some sense), yet are not listed here.

By way of example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rovics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawhitfield (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why only one NIN album? micro.fragdev.com/daw (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
guess, currently as no one add material. :) Please feel free to add relevant material (e.g. with blue links). If the list gets out of control we will debate split or reduction. Shaddim (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academic[edit]

It feels really funny to see Knol in the same section as PLOS. Oh well. What criteria to follow if we want to add other freely licensed databases and megajournals? Perhaps that should be split somewhere else, as we already have Category:Creative Commons Attribution-licensed journals, DOAJ and various lists. Nemo 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that we have to think about how we structure the content, everything into "website" is not helpful for the reader. About knol (while I have not used it while it was online) it seems to had a focus on the non-anonymous authors and their standing in the (special domain) community, not unlike in the academic domain. Shaddim (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of major Creative Commons licensed works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of major Creative Commons licensed works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutos?[edit]

The 20 minutos from Spain is no more free. Read on the website: "ueda prohibida toda reproducción sin permiso escrito de la empresa a los efectos del artículo 32.1, párrafo segundo, de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual. Asimismo, a los efectos establecidos en el artículo 33.1 de Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, la empresa hace constar la correspondiente reserva de derechos, por sí y por medio de sus redactores o autores". https://www.20minutos.es/ Marcia Beatriz Einsfeld (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated news section[edit]

It seems that several of the news outlets listed as being published under Creative Commons are no longer such. And it doesn't seem any sources were cited for the list items anyway. natemup (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_major_Creative_Commons_licensed_works&oldid=1208206056"