<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Creative Commons &#187; United Kingdom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://creativecommons.org/tag/united-kingdom/feed/rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://creativecommons.org</link>
	<description>Share, reuse, and remix — legally.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:22:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Clarifications about CC BY in the UK Open Access&#160;Policy</title>
		<link>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/36572</link>
		<comments>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/36572#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Vollmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Weblog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House of Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCUK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://creativecommons.org/?p=36572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the UK, the House of Commons has asked for feedback on their Open Access Policy. One provision of that policy requires that articles funded through the Research Councils UK (RCUK) must be released under a CC BY license. Last year, CC submitted a short comment in support. And just last month, the House of [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the UK, the House of Commons <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news/committee-announces-an-inquiry-into-open-access/">has asked for feedback</a> on their Open Access Policy. One provision of that policy requires that articles funded through the Research Councils UK (RCUK) must be released under a CC BY license. Last year, CC submitted a <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RCUK_comments">short comment</a> in support. </p>
<p>And just last month, the House of Lords completed a consultation period which has <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Openaccess/OpenAccessevidence.pdf">generated some misinformation</a> about how the CC BY license operates. So, in order to clarify some of these misconceptions, Creative Commons and <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/">Creative Commons UK</a> submitted a joint response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to set the record straight. </p>
<p>We&#8217;ve <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/BIS_committee_UK_OA_Policy">pulled together some clarifications</a> to some of the uncertainty lobbed at the CC BY license provision in the Open Access Policy. Some of the reasons given that CC BY should not be retained include:</p>
<ul>
<li>it would promote &#8220;misuse of research or would cause authors to &#8220;lose control of their work&#8221;</li>
<li>third party rights negotiations for content that authors wish to include within an openly licensed article would prove too difficult</li>
<li>open licensing provides less protection against plagiarism</li>
<li>CC BY is not widely used in OA publishing</li>
<li>authors should choose licensing conditions, not funders</li>
</ul>
<p>These claims are confusing, misguided, or not backed up by evidence. We offer our responses and support <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/BIS_committee_UK_OA_Policy">here</a>. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/36572/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Musician Dan Bull reaches #9 on UK indie charts using&#160;CC0</title>
		<link>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32551</link>
		<comments>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32551#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 17:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jane Park</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Weblog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CC UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CC0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dan Bull]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharing is Caring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecommons.org/?p=32551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dan bull / Tim Dobson / CC BY-SA Indie musician Dan Bull released &#8220;Sharing is Caring&#8221; into the public domain using CC0. Recently, &#8220;Sharing is Caring&#8221; reached #9 on the UK independent chart and #35 on the UK R&#038;B Chart. Creative Commons United Kingdom interviewed Dan about why he chose to release his music for [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align:center" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" about="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4088/4954089192_964ebe4ff4_n.jpg"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timdobson/4954089192/"><img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4088/4954089192_964ebe4ff4_n.jpg" alt="Dan bull" /></a><br /><small><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timdobson/4954089192/"><span property="dc:title">Dan bull</span></a> / <span property="cc:attributionName">Tim Dobson</span> / <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">CC BY-SA</a></small></p>
<p>Indie musician Dan Bull released &#8220;Sharing is Caring&#8221; into the public domain using <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">CC0</a>. Recently, &#8220;Sharing is Caring&#8221; reached <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/indiesingles">#9 on the UK independent chart</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/rnbsingles">#35 on the UK R&#038;B Chart</a>. Creative Commons United Kingdom <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/blog/tabid/84/EntryId/22/Dan-Bull-reaches-number-9-in-the-Indie-charts-with-music-to-which-he-has-waived-copyright-using-CC0.aspx">interviewed</a> Dan about why he chose to release his music for free:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;It&#8217;s up to the individual musician what they want to do and it depends on their principles. In the past I have gone the way of having no licensing on my music at all, or where licensing is necessary, I make it known that I have no problem personally with people copying or remixing the music. If you want to encourage fans to engage with your music, re-interpret it and redistribute it on your behalf, then Creative Commons is a good direction to look in.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>For those who don&#8217;t know, CC0 is not a license, but a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0">universal public domain dedication</a> that may be used by anyone wishing to permanently surrender the copyright they may have in a work, thereby placing it as nearly as possible into the public domain. As far as we know, Dan is the first musician to break into top music charts with music that is free from copyright restrictions. Let us know if we&#8217;re wrong!</p>
<p>Read the full interview with Dan over at the <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/blog/tabid/84/EntryId/22/Dan-Bull-reaches-number-9-in-the-Indie-charts-with-music-to-which-he-has-waived-copyright-using-CC0.aspx">CC UK blog</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32551/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
