company:creative commons

  • What comes after “open source”

    In a previous post, I discussed the history of open source, and ended with this claim:

    Today’s developers have never learned about this history, or don’t care about it, or actively think it’s irrelevant. … For the same reasons that “open source” came up with a new name, I think the movement that will arise from today’s developers will also need a new name.

    We talked about the ideological history of open source, but that’s not what developers object to, really. I don’t think developers are moving back towards a world of making source code private. Instead, it’s something related to a very old discussion in free software. To quote the FSF:

    “Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

    In a similar fashion, I don’t think that developers are turning against the concept of “free as in free speech”. I think that they don’t believe that the current definitions of free software and open source actually produce software that is “free as in speech.”


    t’s that the aims and goals of both of these movements are about distribution and therefore consumption, but what people care about most today is about the production of software. Software licences regulate distribution, but cannot regulate production. (technically they can, but practically, they can’t. I get into this below.) This is also the main challenge of whatever comes after open source; they cannot rely on the legal tactics of the last generation.

    When developers talk about problems they see in open source, it’s often that there are production problems. Companies don’t “give back” money or developer hours. Programmers today don’t seem to be upset that, if they’ve developed any proprietary extensions to their open source software, that those extensions are not shared back with the community. They care that the production process is impeded by additional pressure, without providing resources. If a company were to add a proprietary feature to an open source project, yet pays five employees to develop the open source part further, the FSF sees this as a tragedy. The commons has not been enriched. The new generation of open source developers sees this as a responsible company that thankfully is contributing to the development of something they use and care about.

    Software licenses can only restrict what people can do when they distribute the source code, and that’s it. It cannot force someone to have a bug tracker, or a code of conduct, or accept your patch. Copyleft can force an absolute minimal “contribution” back to your project, but it can’t force a good-faith one. This makes it an inadequate tool towards building something with the kinds of values that many developers care about.


    This image on a product is part of a process called “certification.” The image itself is referred to as a “certification mark.” In order to use this image on your product, you apply to a “certification body”, in this case, the USDA. This body has set up some kind of tests, and if your product passes them, you gain the ability to say that you’ve passed the certification. I chose organic food on purpose here; most aspects of this certification are about the process by which the food is produced.

    Technology is no stranger to these kinds of processes:

    So in theory, one could imagine an organization that produces a different kind of document. Instead of a license for the source code, they would provide a way to say uh, let’s go with “Open Development Certified.” Projects could then submit for certification, they’d get accepted or rejected.

    #free_software #logiciel_libre #open_source

    • Résumé très rapide : autant la FSF que l’OSI décrivent les logiciels libre/OS en terme de licence uniquement. Comme c’est distribuer donc.

      Mais les devs (et là je ne suis pas d’accord : pas que les devs, TOUTE personne contributrice et/ou utilisatrice) se préoccupent de plus en plus de comment c’est fabriqué.

      Dans le réseau Libre-Entreprise, et aux RMLL, on a régulièrement parlé de ce problème : un vrai logiciel libre devrait être plus que la licence. C’est aussi avoir une bonne documentation, construire une communauté inclusive, qui permet à des nouvelles personnes de s’intégrer et modifier autant le noyau que les extensions, etc.

      Semi HS : Après il y en a même qui vont encore plus loin hein : qu’est-ce que fait le logiciel ? Peut-on considérer qu’un logiciel en licence libre qui permet de guider un missile, ou qui est un ERP très pyramidale qui permet de contrôler ses salariés, et qui impose un management et des méthodes de travail pas cool, c’est un logiciel libérateur ?

    • cf.

      Les deux critiques du capitalisme numérique par Sébastien Broca

      L’hypothèse de l’article est ainsi que la critique de la propriétarisation de l’information, portée par les acteurs du logiciel libre, des Creative Commons ou de l’open access, a été largement incorporée par l’économie numérique, comme le montre le succès actuel de business models reposant moins sur l’appropriation privative des ressources informationnelles que sur la participation gracieuse des utilisateurs à la création de valeur. Cette « incorporation » a ouvert la voix à un deuxième type de critique, celle du digital labour, qui ne porte plus sur les entraves à la circulation de l’information et du savoir, mais sur les formes de travail et les modalités de répartition de la valeur qui sont au cœur du (nouveau) capitalisme numérique. L’article analyse les ressorts (et certaines limites) de cette deuxième critique d’inspiration marxiste, qui substitue à un discours axé sur les libertés individuelles et le droit un discours centré sur le travail et les structures économiques.

      La troisième critique est bien sur celle de la valeur elle-même (avant de discuter de sa répartition) et du lien intrinsèque qu’elle entretient avec le numérique... :)

  • The End of Trust (McSweeney’s 54) | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    anthropologist Gabriella Coleman contemplates anonymity; Edward Snowden explains blockchain; journalist Julia Angwin and Pioneer Award-winning artist Trevor Paglen discuss the intersections of their work; Pioneer Award winner Malkia Cyril discusses the historical surveillance of black bodies; and Ken Montenegro and Hamid Khan of Stop LAPD Spying debate author and intelligence contractor Myke Cole on the question of whether there’s a way law enforcement can use surveillance responsibly.

    The End of Trust is available to download and read right now under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license.

  • Deutsche Fotothek

    The Archiv der Fotografen — Archive of Photographers provides a virtual showroom for the works of distinguished photographers in Germany - from the portfolio of the Deutsche Fotothek and the collections of our partners.

    Furthermore you can currently search in 1,996,000 images from 90 institutions: photographs, paintings, graphics as well as maps and architectural drawings.
    Free of charge are our digital objects provided by the Deutsche Fotothek (reduced quality) - they are licensed under the Creative Commons License CC-BY-SA 3.0 . You are allowed to reproduce and distribute the content, to adapt and build upon the material for different purposes, as long as you credit the SLUB as source and license your new creations under the identical terms.

    Use of individual images in academic publications with an edition of less than 1,000 copies shall also be free of charge.

    As soon as digital objects are published in printed matter or other offline media, the customer is to deliver a specimen copy unsolicitedly. The images in questions are to be marked. According to § 26 of the German law on publishing rights, the SLUB holds the right to purchase further copies at a preferential price.

    In case of online use the URL is to be sent to fothothek@slub-dresden .

    Media center services are excluded from the usage charges stated above. They are listed seperately under item III.

    When publishing textual media and music sheets of the SLUB stock, the source must be indicated in the following way:

    SLUB, signature, if applicable PURL

    Images from the stock of the Deutsche Fotothek must be indicated as followed:

    SLUB/Deutsche Fotothek, name of photographer

    Customers are liable for the use of images as stated in the General Terms and conditions.

    Please note, also third party copyrights may apply. The customer is to preserve these rights (e.g. copyright of a reproduced piece of arts, personal rights, proprietary rights of collections, brand law).

    #photgraphie #collection #creative_commons

  • Water : An Atlas
    Atlases – Guerrilla Cartography

    Le voilà publié et disponible en pdf !
    Pas eu le temps de regarder vraiment mais aperçu de très belles cartes
    (non, je n’ai pas contribué)

    Water: An Atlas is the latest collaborative atlas project by Guerrilla Cartography. This atlas continues the collaborative spirit and narrative range originally brought to life in our first atlas, Food: An Atlas. Water, like food, is required to sustain human life—and so it is a natural choice for our second published project. In its pages you an explore how humans interface with water: controlling, politicizing, commodifying, and polluting it; how water is a harbinger of climate change and how water inspires our imagination and exploration.

    Water: An Atlas is printed and bound in full color, and all proceeds benefit Guerrilla Cartography, a registered nonprofit corporation. Buy your copy today in softcover or hardcover by clicking here for domestic sales. For international sales, please contact us.

    Download Water: An Atlas as a 101.9 MB PDF licensed under Creative Commons. Use and reuse the maps to inspire others with cartography. The atlas was published in December, 2017.

    #atlas #cartographie #visualisation #eau

  • (3) Que reste-t-il des utopies du Net ? - Libération

    Bel hommage par Amaelle Guiton

    Le 8 février 1996, John Perry Barlow est à Davos, en Suisse, à l’invitation du Forum économique mondial. Drôle d’oiseau que l’Américain, à la fois poète, essayiste, ranchero et parolier du Grateful Dead. Libertarien revendiqué, il penche, dans les faits, du côté des Républicains – en 1978, il a dirigé la campagne pour le Congrès de Dick Cheney dans le Wyoming –, dont il ne se distanciera qu’au début des années 2000, échaudé par George W. Bush. Surtout, il est une figure d’une des premières communautés en ligne, fondée en 1985 : The Well, qui sera la matrice du magazine Wired. Avec deux autres membres de The Well, l’informaticien John Gilmore et l’entrepreneur Mitch Kapor, il a créé, en 1990, l’Electronic Frontier Foundation, une association de défense des libertés civiles sur Internet.

    Mais sa « Déclaration d’indépendance du cyberespace », envoyée par e-mail à quelque 400 contacts, va se répandre dans la nuit telle une traînée de poudre. « Gouvernements du monde industriel, vous, géants fatigués de chair et d’acier, je viens du cyberespace, la nouvelle demeure de l’esprit, écrit l’Américain, lyrique à souhait. Au nom du futur, je vous demande à vous, du passé, de nous laisser tranquilles. Vous n’êtes pas les bienvenus parmi nous. Vous n’avez pas de souveraineté là où nous nous rassemblons. » En 2013, le microlabel Department of Records en enregistrera la lecture par son auteur :

    De fait, la « Déclaration d’indépendance du cyberespace » va devenir un bréviaire des cyberutopies libertaires. A la relire aujourd’hui, alors qu’elle vient de fêter son vingtième anniversaire, elle semble terriblement datée. « On a l’impression d’avoir changé de monde, et d’Internet », résume Benoît Thieulin, le président sortant du Conseil national du numérique (CNNum). Sont passés par là, à mesure que croissait le nombre d’utilisateurs du réseau, les luttes des industries culturelles contre le piratage, les débats sur les limites à la liberté d’expression, entre régulation et censure, et l’extension de la surveillance de masse. Barlow lui-même n’a pas oublié les déclarations de Nicolas Sarkozy sur « l’Internet civilisé » au G8 de 2011, comme il le raconte à Wired.

    Passée par là, aussi, la domination des géants de la Silicon Valley avec son corollaire, l’hyperconcentration des données personnelles. Dans sa « Déclaration », Barlow ne s’attaquait qu’aux gouvernements, sans voir (ou sans vouloir voir) que d’autres forces étaient déjà à l’œuvre – trois ans plus tard, le juriste américain Larry Lessig, créateur des licences Creative Commons, le rappellerait utilement dans le lumineux Code et autres lois du cyberespace. Et loin de s’autonomiser, le « cyberespace » est tout au contraire devenu une dimension, à l’échelle planétaire, du monde sensible, où se renouent et se rejouent les rapports de forces et les conflits, y compris les plus violents.

    Surtout, la vision d’Internet comme espace d’autonomie individuelle et collective, d’émancipation et de réinvention sociale, portée entre autres par Barlow, n’a pas disparu. « La puissance d’Internet a toujours été de s’appuyer sur un imaginaire fort, souligne Benoît Thieulin. Cet imaginaire de transformation sociale est toujours là ». Pour lui, il y a surtout, aujourd’hui, une « invitation à repenser les promesses initiales des pères fondateurs » du réseau, à l’heure d’un Internet massifié où « les combats se sont déplacés ». L’avenir du « cyberespace » ne se joue certes plus dans une logique de sécession radicale qui, même à l’époque, semblait illusoire à bien des égards, mais dans le débat démocratique et dans la construction d’alternatives. De ce point de vue, les discussions autour de la neutralité du Net, de la reconnaissance des « biens communs numériques », de l’usage de la cryptographie ou de la protection des données personnelles portent toujours la marque des utopies premières. Même corrigées des variations saisonnières.

    #John_Perry_Barlow #Cyberespace #Histoire_numérique

  • Fennia - International Journal of Geography

    FENNIA is a non-profit peer-review journal published by the Geographical Society of Finland since 1889. It is an international scientific publication dedicated to all fields of geography with attentiveness to northern dimensions (aims and scope). In 2010, FENNIA became an open access electronic journal with two yearly issues. It is devoted to a fast publication process, including the open access publication of forthcoming papers before inclusion in an issue. The journal has no submission or article processing charges. It uses the Creative Commons Attribution License, which assures that authors retain full copyright to their work and are encouraged to post their work online prior, during, and after the publication process. FENNIA is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the peer review standards set by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV). It is indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Thomson Reuters Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). The language of t he journal is English.

    FENNIA publishes papers of high scholarly merit in three categories: research papers, review articles and reflections. Research papers are original full-length articles that make a significant contribution to geographic and related research. Shorter review articles introduce empirical, theoretical or methodological insights from ongoing research. Reflections section includes commentaries, debates, discussion pieces, interventions and other argumentative short texts related to contemporary issues. With these three publication formats, FENNIA seeks to take forward geographical research and discussion in a critical and responsible spirit. In addition to individual contributions, the journal welcomes proposals for special issues and sections.

    #géographie #revue #géographie_critique

  • Linux Foundation Debuts Community Data License Agreement

    Inspired by the collaborative software development models of open source software, the CDLA licenses are designed to enable individuals and organizations of all types to share data as easily as they currently share open source software code. Soundly drafted licensing models can help people form communities to assemble, curate and maintain vast amounts of data, measured in petabytes and exabytes, to bring new value to communities of all types, to build new business opportunities and to power new applications that promise to enhance safety and services.

    The growth of big data analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has allowed people to extract unprecedented levels of insight from data. Now the challenge is to assemble the critical mass of data for those tools to analyze. The CDLA licenses are designed to help governments, academic institutions, businesses and other organizations open up and share data, with the goal of creating communities that curate and share data openly.

    Bon, j’ai toujours un problème avec les relations « frictionless », qui semble un objectif qui ne tient pas compte de l’histoire humaine. Je préfère l’insistance sur les méthodes souples de résolutions des conflits (ce qui est au coeur de la pratique des communs). Mais on voit l’objectif ici :

    “An open data license is essential for the frictionless sharing of the data that powers both critical technologies and societal benefits,” said Jim Zemlin, Executive Director of The Linux Foundation. “The success of open source software provides a powerful example of what can be accomplished when people come together around a resource and advance it for the common good. The CDLA licenses are a key step in that direction and will encourage the continued growth of applications and infrastructure.”

    L’idée ressemble beaucoup à ce qui avait été proposé il y a quelques années autour de Creative Commons Healt Licence.

    There are two CDLA licenses: a Sharing license that encourages contributions of data back to the data community and a Permissive license that puts no additional sharing requirements on recipients or contributors of open data. Both encourage and facilitate the productive use of data. A few commercial and community implications of the licenses include:

    Data producers can share with greater clarity about what recipients may do with it. Data producers can also choose between Sharing and Permissive licenses and select the model that best aligns with their interests. In either case, data producers should enjoy the clarity of recognized terms and disclaimers of liabilities and warranties.

    Data communities can standardize on a license or set of licenses that provide the ability to share data on known, equal terms that balance the needs of data producers and data users. Data communities have a high degree of flexibility to add their own governance and requirements for curating data as a community, particularly around areas such as personally identifiable information.

    Data users who are looking for datasets to help kick off training an AI system or for any other use will have the ability to find data shared under a known license model with terms that clearly state their rights and responsibilities.

    The CDLA is data privacy agnostic and relies on the publisher and curators of the data to create their own governance structure around what data they curate and how. Each producer or curator of data will have to work through various jurisdictional requirements and legal issues.

    #Open_data #Intelligence_artificielle #Open_source #Licence

  • Terms of Use | Transcribathon

    Voilà qui est fort bien !!!

    Les gens sont d’autant plus incités à participer à un projet collectif que le résultat aura la garantie de rester collectif.

    Vive le Transcribathon

    This document contains the terms applicable to users who contribute content and metadata to The website is a service product of the Europeana Foundation. The user must be aware that the Europeana Foundation strives to make all content and metadata available for reuse with a minimum of restrictions.

    As part of this policy, the Europeana Terms for User Contributions establish that;

    Content and metadata contributed by users will be made available on and and may ber used in any related Europeana communication channel.
    All content that is contributed to Europeana by its users is done so under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license. This means that a user grants third parties, like Europeana, the right to freely use that content, as long as they attribute the work to the author and share alterations of that content under the same conditions.
    All metadata that is contributed to Europeana by its users is done so under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0). This means that a user waives all copyright in the metadata which allows third parties, like Europeana, to freely reuse the metadata.

    If you do not agree with these policies please do not contribute content and/or metadata to Europeana.

    These Terms for User Contributions determines inter alia the following aspects of the relationship between users contributing content to and Europeana:

    Passwords and logging in (Article 3)
    Responsibility for the operation of the platform (Article 4)
    Intellectual property rights to the content (Article 5)
    Intellectual property rights to metadata (Article 6)
    Unlawful use of the service (Article 7)
    Users’ personal data (privacy) (Article 8)
    Liability of the parties in the event of damage or loss (Article 9)

    By creating an account on, the user indicates acceptance of these terms and conditions. Once a user account is created, the conditions can be accessed on

    #Europeana #Transcribathon #Creative_commons

  • Marysia Lewandowska
    12.07.2017 (79’ 41’’)

    The Women’s Audio Archive is a collection of recordings of private conversations, seminars, talks, conferences, and public events that Polish-born, London based artist Marysia Lewandowska carefully compiled from 1985 to 1990. Over 200 hours of audio that began as a fictitious archive that provided an interface and a cover for approaching key female figures in the arts and talking to them at length. The ideas and concerns of the second wave of feminism run through these mostly informal recordings, underpinned by Marysia’s intuition and her desire “to write that history with them, and to find myself in the present.”

    In 2009, Lewandowska was invited by Maria Lind, Director of the Centre for Curatorial Studies at the time, to digitize the material and work with the collection in an effort of making it available online and decided to turn this private collection into an online public archive under a Creative Commons license. The process includes documenting the negotiations involved in bringing about this change of status, twenty years later.

    SON(I)A talks to Marysia Lewandowska about the Women’s Audio Archive, about the crucial need to generate counter-narratives in totalitarian regimes, about networking before networks, about the boundaries between the private and the public, the negotiations generated by the shift from one sphere to another, the responsibilities of the archive, and the potential to generate conversation through art.

    This podcast includes fragments from the Women’s Audio Archive and the voices of (in order of appearance): Marysia Lewandowska, Nourbese Philip, Nan Goldin, Nancy Spero, Allan Kaprow, Jo Spence, Lynne Tillman, Donald Judd, Maureen O. Paley, Susan Hiller, Lynne Tillman, Judy Chicago. The complete recordings are available at Women’s Audio Archive.

    03:10 Marysia Lewandowska: A good moment to reflect on the Women’s Audio Archive.
    03:26 M. Nourbese Philip: the loss of the original tongue, in search of a missing text.
    07:37 Marysia Lewandowska: Setting up a mode of working to be in control and to understand the culture around.
    09:10 Nan Goldin and Marysia Lewandowska: The desire for conversation.
    12:30 Marysia Lewandowska: From public recordings to private conversations
    14:10 Judy Chicago: The way women communicate.
    15:07 Marysia Lewandowska: A conversation can’t be scripted.
    16:00 Allan Kaprow: Post-68.
    18:35 Marysia Lewandowska: Thinking of self-archiving, keeping a record of what happens.
    21:36 Jo Spence: A split subjectivity.
    25:10 Marysia Lewandowska: Developing a voice.
    29:15 Lynne Tillman: Chit-chatting about the menu.
    29:45 Marysia Lewandowska: The previous experience in Poland, clubs, discussions, amateur films and other strategies to survive.
    36:01 Marysia Lewandowska: Making it public and the question of access.
    38:08 Donald Judd: The challenge of making things permanent
    40:09 Marysia Lewandowska: A new structure for an archive and the negotiation process
    51:19 Maureen O. Paley: Women have led, women have fought
    52:40 Marysia Lewandowska: Important conversations.
    53:40 Susan Hiller and Marysia Lewandowska: Saying the one thing you want to say.
    56:40 Marysia Lewandowska: The need for the archive to be intact.
    58:52 Susan Hiller: I believe in reciprocity.
    01:01:24 Marysia Lewandowska: Self-instituting by giving it a name.
    01:02:35 Judy Chicago: Being lady-like.
    01:03:13 Marysia Lewandowska: Many of the women were feminists.
    01:04:53 Nancy Spero: My vulnerability through the language of Artaud.
    01:08:49 Marysia Lewandowska: A network before email, before digitization and before the internet.
    01:11:25 Judy Chicago: Discrimination.
    01:12:44 Marysia Lewandowska: Bad recordings.
    01:13:13 Judy Chicago
    01:14:35 Marysia Lewandowska: How the Museum gets distributed, artworks starting a conversation.
    01:16:57 An unsuspected archival finding to end this conversation.

  • Creative Commons : Community Activities Fund Application Form

    The #Creative_Commons Community Activities #Fund provides small amounts of funding resources to CC Community Members for everyday activities that support projects aligned with the Creative Commons Strategy. These grants are meant to provide quick support for activities, projects and events. For kickstarting projects, facilitate travel and mentorships, and support the organization of CC-themed events around the globe.

    Un simple formulaire à remplir pour demander une petite somme (de 0 à 1000$) à la fondation Creative Commons, pour soutenir un projet ou événement contribuant aux communs.

  • 470,000 images from Europeana join the new Creative Commons Search database - Europeana Professional

    A tool for discovery, collaboration and re-use, CC Search enables users to search a variety of open repositories through a single interface to find content in the commons. Developed by Creative Commons, the current CC Search tool is used by nearly 600,000 people every month. The new beta version of the project, which was released in early February, includes simple, one-click attribution making it easier to credit the source of any image. CC Search beta also provides social features, allowing users to create, share and save lists as well as adding tags and favorites to the objects in the commons.

    The beta version of CC Search has recently integrated 470,00 images from Europeana into its database, which already incorporates artworks provided by cultural institutions and repositories from across the globe.

    #creative_commons #europeana

  • Show 631

    Questions of Travel

    By Jo Burzynska

    Questions of Travel is a sonic travelogue inspired by two poems that chart different but interlinked journeys, created largely from recordings made on my own travels around the world. The first part, created specifically for this programme, draws on and uses fragments of the Elizabeth Bishop poem, Questions of Travel. The second, was the sound element of an audio-olfactory installation at the Institute for Art and Olfaction (2016, Los Angeles) and takes a sensuous journey through external to internal worlds using Charles Baudelaire’s La Chevelure as its guide.

    Additional Creative Commons recordings used courtesy of Taira Komori, Andy Gardner, Glen Faramach and Panta Rei.

    Jo Burzynska – who also works under the name Stanier Black-Five – is an (...)

  • #OpenSourceSeeds, is trying to “make #seeds a common good again.” The license amounts to a form of “copyleft” for new plant varieties, enabling anyone to use the licensed seeds for free. Like the General Public License for free software, the seed license has one serious requirement: any seeds that are used, modified or sold must be passed along to others without any legal restrictions. This is the #share-alike principle, which is also used by Creative Commons licenses. Its purpose is to prevent the privatization of a common resource by requiring any user to share it freely and forever. #graines #semences #GPL #license #licence

  • Image and Data Resources | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

    On February 7, 2017, The Metropolitan Museum of Art implemented a new policy known as Open Access, which makes images of artworks it believes to be in the public domain widely and freely available for unrestricted use, and at no cost, in accordance with the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) designation and the Terms and Conditions of this website.

    It also makes available data from the entire online collection―both works it believes to be in the public domain and those under copyright or other restrictions―including basic information such as title, artist, date, medium, and dimensions. This data is available to all in accordance with the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) designation.

    That’s about 375k images, many beautiful (I think in total CC0 and ©, but still…).


    Un site de photographies sous licence CC0

    Do I have to give credit to a photographer when I use their photo?

    The Unsplash license uses the Creative Commons Zero license, which doesn’t require credit to be given. However, we encourage giving credit to the photographer if possible, since they generously donated their photographs for use by the public.

    A simple credit like ‘Photo by x’ with a link back to their Unsplash profile is always appreciated.
    Can I use Unsplash photographs for commercial purposes?

    Of course! The Unsplash license allows for photographs to be used for any purpose — both commercial and personal. Blogs, art, book covers, tshirts, and more — paid or unpaid — they’re all allowed under the license.

    Check out Made with Unsplash for more examples.
    Can I sell Unsplash photos?

    Legally, the CC0 license allows you to sell the photos posted on Unsplash. However, the Creative Commons and Unsplash communities are pretty vocal in their dislike for this (not to mention it makes no economic sense, since the photo is already free).

    We recommend never selling another photographer’s work without adding to it creatively, through remixing or other methods. A simple way to think about this is to ask yourself: did I add something to this in a way that deserves value? If I were the original photographer, would I see this as a creative use of my photo?

    Made with Unsplash has many examples of remixes created with Unsplash photos that showcases how the photos can be used creatively.

    #domaine_public #CC0

  • Government Accuses NASA of Incitement Over Deforestation Data

    The Environment Ministry has accused the U.S.’s space agency and local media outlets of “incitement” for publishing and misreporting year-old deforestation data that show years of rapid forest loss.

    In 2015, the University of Maryland used U.S. satellite data to reveal that between 2001 and 2014 the annual forest loss rate in Cambodia accelerated by 14.4 percent, leading to one of the highest deforestation rates in the world since the turn of the century.
    #déforestation #Cambodge #forêt #cartographie #visualisation #dispute
    cc @albertocampiphoto
    via @odilon que je remercie