Slideshow- Conversations

Hey Chris…
I like the way your slideshow presents complicated concepts in a simple, engaging, and visual way.

I like your “Be Careful” slide (#6). I recently gave a similar presentation to a small group. Those items on the slide were definitely some potentially negative attributes of online “conversations” that the group discussed.

Thanks for sharing!

I see, “This slideshow has either been removed or made private by its owner.”

Coincidentally, I used SlideShare for the first time last week. (Loudmouthman put me on to it.)

I seldom use “slides” when talking – I tend to turn the projector off, and use visual aids I can hold (and in some cases, drop or throw) – because I can engage an audience looking at me better than an audience looking at a screen behind me.

I do, however, give out copies of my “crib notes”…

… should I spend time making them look pretty as well, or just have them as a page of black-on-white text?

Views?

I used Slideshare just last week, and it was a Godsend. In my case, I wanted to put up the slides from Bryan Person and my PodCamp Boston session to go along with the audio podcast. not many slides, but they did illustrate some points. The session, by the way, was about following and joining online conversations.

Later I realized you could use Slideshare to sync the slides to the audio, so instead of streaming the audio on the site and giving the slides separately, I could offer a synced-up show. Very cool. Here is the post.

Hey Chris,
I’m passionate about Creative Commons and making sure that photos with Creative Commons licenses are used in an appropriate manner.

In your presentation you say, “All photos were found on flickr and were licensed under the Creative Commons license”

Which ones?

BY?

NC?

SA?

By your statement you are giving the impression that if it’s on flicr and has a CC license, anyone can use it. That’s not right.

Each photo has a specific license on it and there are many to choose from.

We’ve talked about this before and I had a chance to talk with
Mike Linksvsyer from Creative Commons about it when I was recently in SF.

We talked about the definition of Commercial Use. Some people think it just means that when it says Non Commercial use it means you can’t resell someone’s photo. I think it means you can’t use it in business without getting express permission from the photographer.

I think we can all agree that it’s ill defined.

I’m gathering people’s perspectives on the issue…

Here’s Mike’s interview:

http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/11/talking-cc.html

BTW, in Mark’s presentation, he puts the person’s name and URL to the photo right on the presentation… and he’s the guy who runs Creative Commons…

One thing you could do to allow people to visit the photos is to make the links on this post clickable.

I wonder what your readers feel commercial use is?
Thanks,
–Steve

Hey Chris,
I’m passionate about Creative Commons and making sure that photos with Creative Commons licenses are used in an appropriate manner.

In your presentation you say, “All photos were found on flickr and were licensed under the Creative Commons license”

Which ones?

BY?

NC?

SA?

By your statement you are giving the impression that if it’s on flicr and has a CC license, anyone can use it. That’s not right.

Each photo has a specific license on it and there are many to choose from.

We’ve talked about this before and I had a chance to talk with
Mike Linksvsyer from Creative Commons about it when I was recently in SF.

We talked about the definition of Commercial Use. Some people think it just means that when it says Non Commercial use it means you can’t resell someone’s photo. I think it means you can’t use it in business without getting express permission from the photographer.

I think we can all agree that it’s ill defined.

I’m gathering people’s perspectives on the issue…

Here’s Mike’s interview:

http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/11/talking-cc.html

BTW, in Mark’s presentation, he puts the person’s name and URL to the photo right on the presentation… and he’s the guy who runs Creative Commons…

One thing you could do to allow people to visit the photos is to make the links on this post clickable.

I wonder what your readers feel commercial use is?
Thanks,
–Steve

To answer Steve,

I feel that commercial use would be if you directly make money with you website, no matter how much money it is, it is commercial. That is a very strict way of thinking but it keeps me protected.

I listened to the interview that Steve linked to and feel that we, as a community, need to talk about and find out what will be defined as commercial use.

As for Chris’ use of the photos without giving the license on each photo, that seems to be a grey area. I also didn’t look at each photos license so I would not know what each one’s license is.

When I search for photos on flickr to use, I always use flickr’s advanced search and make sure I find photos that only need attribution. That keeps me safe because I attribute and don’t have to worry about anything else.

-Lan

I used Flickr’s advanced search and asked it to only give me people’s photos that are CC licensed.

I thought the way Lan did, that if I’m not getting money for the derivative work, than it’s non-commercial. I’m thinking of the word “commerce” to mean “money.”

I didn’t get paid to speak for that presentation, and I didn’t include the materials in anything that I’m getting paid for. I’m not even running ads on this blog, so I don’t even fall into the “use my content to make money off your ads” argument. Right?

I feel I’m within the right use of the photos, but I’ve been wrong (many times) before.

Chris,
Creative Commons has different flavors. By doing a search for “CC licensed”, you are not excluding those that prohibit commercial use.

Lan says, “I always use flickr’s advanced search and make sure I find photos that only need attribution.” When you use those photos the issue of commercial use does not apply.

You have speaking engagements and post to this blog as a part of marketing yourself. To me, that’s a business use.

If you flew somewhere to speak, did you expense the air and hotel as a business expense?

If you did that, then I’d guess that the presentation was a commercial use.

–Steve

Chris,
Creative Commons has different flavors. By doing a search for “CC licensed”, you are not excluding those that prohibit commercial use.

Lan says, “I always use flickr’s advanced search and make sure I find photos that only need attribution.” When you use those photos the issue of commercial use does not apply.

You have speaking engagements and post to this blog as a part of marketing yourself. To me, that’s a business use.

If you flew somewhere to speak, did you expense the air and hotel as a business expense?

If you did that, then I’d guess that the presentation was a commercial use.

–Steve

I think Chris’ use is in the grey area that Mike was talking about in his interview.

Chris isn’t making money from selling products on this blog, or selling ads, or really selling anything.

I think because of this blog it increases the chance of Chris making money in the future from anything from consulting to endorsing a product or idea. That is why it is grey.

I will say that Chris did no wrong with the way he used the photos on his blog. It is all good.

Steve, I see where you are going with the flying expense as business then it becomes commercial. I agree with that too. Although I believe in this particular case Chris was only on a conference call (which if it was on a business expenses internet/phone connection your point still applies).

Well, I think this is getting more complicated than us non lawyers can really handle. We can beat this around the community a bit and see if it generates any interest… But with my experience it doesn’t hold public interest much until some money is involved.

Hi, Steve Garfield pointed me here…

The NC issue aside, it is good to give notice of exactly which CC license is being used. See for example my slides from the event Steve interviewed me at http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/media-web-meetup-1-cc-rocknrebirth (yeah, slideshare is pretty cool).

I don’t know that attribution has to be on the same slide the image is used on — attribution is fairly flexible — “appropriate to the medium” — so an end slide (similar to a credit roll in a film I suppose) presumably works, but IANAL.

WRT NC and images, there is a huge non-grey area, as I said in the interview. But if you think you’re in a grey area, the great thing is that there are something like 12 million CC licensed photos on Flickr that *do* allow commercial use http://flickr.com/creativecommons/ so you can usually find something that works with your slides without worrying about NC. http://piqs.de/ is another good source of photos that allow commercial use (all under CC BY), though using it takes some muddling through, unless you speak German.

Hi, Steve Garfield pointed me here…

The NC issue aside, it is good to give notice of exactly which CC license is being used. See for example my slides from the event Steve interviewed me at http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/media-web-meetup-1-cc-rocknrebirth (yeah, slideshare is pretty cool).

I don’t know that attribution has to be on the same slide the image is used on — attribution is fairly flexible — “appropriate to the medium” — so an end slide (similar to a credit roll in a film I suppose) presumably works, but IANAL.

WRT NC and images, there is a huge non-grey area, as I said in the interview. But if you think you’re in a grey area, the great thing is that there are something like 12 million CC licensed photos on Flickr that *do* allow commercial use http://flickr.com/creativecommons/ so you can usually find something that works with your slides without worrying about NC. http://piqs.de/ is another good source of photos that allow commercial use (all under CC BY), though using it takes some muddling through, unless you speak German.

Hi Mike- Thanks for the conversation. So, in the above-mentioned thread, is my use of these slides commercial?

–Chris…

Wait! So that was a great URL, Mike. Because if I’m understanding right, I can now use THIS url to search:

http://flickr.com/creativecommons/by-nd-2.0/

Right?

Wait! So that was a great URL, Mike. Because if I’m understanding right, I can now use THIS url to search:

http://flickr.com/creativecommons/by-nd-2.0/

Right?

Chris,

I would say go with this:

http://flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/

With ND you “You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.”

Then you only need to worry about attribution!!! That is safest I think.

Cool! Thanks everyone for the schooling. Now I know. And as far as running the attribution as credits at the end, I figured that was less obtrusive to the original work.

Makes sense about the non-derivative. My text all over their art is derivative. Didn’t think about it.

Should I kill that preso?

Cool! Thanks everyone for the schooling. Now I know. And as far as running the attribution as credits at the end, I figured that was less obtrusive to the original work.

Makes sense about the non-derivative. My text all over their art is derivative. Didn’t think about it.

Should I kill that preso?

Great! We’ve made progress.

Now the next item on the agenda is getting flickr to change.

Flickr needs to provide HTML code on each photo that has a CC license on it. This HTML code should include links back to the flickr photo page, and any attribution and CC license so the user doesn’t have to code it all themselves.

It would make is so much easier to adhere to attribution requirements of photo owners when blogging…

When I go to a certain size photo of mine, I am presented with the HTML to copy and paste onto a web page.

Not so for other people’s pictures…

Hello flickr people?

I agree. Hello? Flickr?

I agree. Hello? Flickr?

Another fabulous presentation. I fell in love with your way of presenting at BlogWorld. Can you please teach others? KThnx. ;)

I’m with Guy Kawasaki on this one…I go to istockphoto and buy em. ;)

I’m with Guy Kawasaki on this one…I go to istockphoto and buy em. ;)