cyanocorax 3:04pm, 16 September 2008
I just found some handy links to help you change the licenses on your photos:

1. Change the setting for all new photos you upload

2. Change the setting for all the photos you already have uploaded

You can also change the license on each individual photo one at a time by clicking on edit next to the "All rights reserved" (or whatever your license is). And you can use Organize & Create to change the licenses for any batch of images you would like to contribute to the group. Look for Change licensing under Permissions in the Batch Organize tab.

To cut through the legal jargon, the creative commons licenses will 1) let you keep your copyright, 2) and allow EOL and others to use them on our webpages under the conditions you choose (like, we have to give you credit for the image, and other conditions if you choose).
mario.pineda 13 years ago
Which one of all the licenses do we have to choose so you guys could use them for EOL?
cyanocorax Posted 13 years ago. Edited by cyanocorax (admin) 13 years ago
It is up on the description of the group (below the discussion area):

- Public Domain
- Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY)
- Creative Commons Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC)
- Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA)
- Creative Commons Non-Commercial Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA)

Oh, and just to be clear -- you have to own the copyright to the image to be able to license it. So don't go scanning your National Geographics for us :-)
Valter Jacinto | Portugal Posted 13 years ago. Edited by Valter Jacinto | Portugal (member) 13 years ago
Why this License is not allowed?

Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC-BY-NC-ND)
cyanocorax Posted 13 years ago. Edited by cyanocorax (admin) 13 years ago
Good question. EOL's steering committee feels very strongly that this license is too restrictive. They want EOL to place as few conditions as possible on the information we serve.

The traditional academic publishing industry places quite a few restrictions on use of their material. To look at a journal article you usually have to either pay a subscription fee yourself or be a member of an institution rich enough to pay the (often extremely high) institutional subscription fee. You are not allowed to share that article with your colleagues. Open access journals are changing that, putting the financial burden on the authors so that access can be as free as possible.

At the other end is Wikipedia, which neither charges its users nor charges its authors. Their info is essentially CC-BY-SA (or it will be soon). Interestingly, while other sites can take their info, repackage, remodel, and redistribute it, everyone still goes to Wikipedia.

EOL is tending toward the open model, but trying its best to ensure better quality than Wikipedia. And that makes it hard for scientists and especially illustrators who do not want to allow others to make derivatives of their work.

I'm interested in hearing other views on this subject.
Eric Hunt. 13 years ago
I agree with your stance - the NoDerivs license is, in my opinion, not in the spirit of sharing information. It also muddies up the legal waters - my first thought: Is resizing considered a derivative work?
polly.snodgrass 13 years ago
Hello everyone. I signed up for flickr for one purpose and one purpose only... to participate in the EOL project. I won't be using my account for anything else.

What I want to know is... right now my photos are showing "all rights reserved" by default. Which license do I need to be using instead? To be certain that it's compatible with EOL?

Thanks in advance for any help.

cyanocorax Posted 13 years ago. Edited by cyanocorax (admin) 13 years ago
Hi Polly,

Here's the list worded the way that Flickr does it (they just have the words in a different order, and they don't list them logically)
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
Attribution Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons

Attribution Creative Commons is the least restrictive -- other people must give you credit if they use your image.

The first one is the most restrictive on the list -- not only must people give you credit (attribution), they cannot use it for commercial purposes (NonCommercial) and they must apply the same license to whatever they create using your work (ShareAlike).

Any of these will work for EOL. The instructions for how to change it is in the first message on this page.

Glad you're with us!
polly.snodgrass 13 years ago
Thanks muchly! Glad to be here. =)

A.Poulos (Iya) 13 years ago
I too started a flickr account solely for the EOL yay! Maybe I will use it for more later. I have Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons set to all my photos. Is this ok? I don't really care how my photos are used as long as they are not used for profit and that I get credit.
cyanocorax 13 years ago
Unfortunately, NoDerivs won't work (see the previous comments above). Anyway, I hope you find Flickr a friendly place. There are some great groups here where you can learn good photographic technique and also get help with identifying organisms. When I get a chance I'll find details and post them.
A.Poulos (Iya) 13 years ago
I changed it. :)
DE Raby 13 years ago
Thanks for you help Cindy. I think I have all my eyes crosses and tees dotted now. I have a couple insects that may be used, but I do not have them identified. Is that your field? I will post on Flickr and you can see... DER
cyanocorax 13 years ago
Sorry, I'm not very good with insects. I highly recommend Flickr's ID Please group or
Well I think this is a big problem, while I would grant EOL exclusive rights but not the whole world, it looks like right now Creative Commons doesn't seem to have a solution. It's very difficult to understand and most people don't undersatnd it or a bigger problem, honor Creative Commons Licenses. I use to use CC but have changed to All rights reserved because people think that CC means that they can steal it.
At least with all rights reserved people understand that,but soesn't mean they won't rip it.
Michael Jefferies 13 years ago
I don't see this as a problem; those who wish or need to retain control over their photos don't have to join!
iansand 13 years ago
The exclusion of "No Derivs" seems to be based in a greater philosophical approach without consideration of the actual needs of EOL. What it does is create a barrier to contributions, for no actual gain to EOL. Could someone explain why excluding No Derivs has a positive effect for the site?

As it is, when I contribute an image I am required to add machine tags. A licence change from No Derivs is another step and I cannot see why this is necessary.
Michael Jefferies 13 years ago
I am sorry to see that there seems to be concern over a clearly stated EOL policy; if one doesn't like it one does not have to contribute! The policy relates to the needs that the EOL feels relevant to their goals; end of story.
cyanocorax 13 years ago
@Ian -- The benefit is that whatever we do have can be re-used with few restrictions. The gain is to our users. Those who choose to contribute gain visibility and the satisfaction of knowing they are helping to spread knowledge widely.

@Dallara photography -- There's a good thread on some of these issues here: Exclusivity doesn't work for us because of how our niche in the information landscape is defined. But there are some options listed there I hope you'll consider.

@Michael -- Thanks for understanding.

Another option that hasn't been mentioned is adding links from our pages (listed under the specialist projects) to content that doesn't have one of the listed CC-licenses.
Everyone wants my photos Free... just because of CC.

Like 'machine tags' only exists because of EOL, there must be a special CC for EOL...

2 examples:

- "But you should be aware that by placing your photos under CC you *are* giving everyone, not just EOL, the right to use them for free"

- "It doesn't matter where you release your photos, whether at the Tree of Life site, or at FLICKR. When you use this license, you are allowing people to create derivative works, including web pages, as long as the following conditions are met:"
platycryptus 13 years ago
Photographers need to make a choice here. Personally, I prefer the CC Attribution license, because it is least restrictive and allows general use of my work. But, this is not my source of income. The "no derivatives" versions are problematic, but according to CC they do not restrict any compilations that are called "collections." This can be confusing. If you want to sell your photographs as a professional, don't release them under CC licenses, which are irrevocable. Once in a while you may find a customer for that special photograph! Over time, as they accept the many community values of shared photography, an increasing number of people who are not looking for income here enjoy sharing their photography, to increase our shared appreciation of the natural world.
treegrow 11 years ago
Discussions about licensing can continue here:
Why does EOL require creative commons licenses for all its content?
Groups Beta