[cc-community] Public-domain-style licenses (was Re: Why "Wiki license" = CC-BY-SA?)
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Jan 18 12:50:42 EST 2008
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:57, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 January 2008 23:11:28 Terry Hancock wrote:
> >>It might be reasonable to call the new "CC0" license a "public domain
> >>license" (although some people would call that phrase an oxymoron
> >>because anything in the public domain neither has nor needs a license).
> >
> > I am not so sure of that last statement in this day and age.
> >
> > I make a work which for whatever reason does not get an automatic
> > copyright. I don't know this. You may not know this either.
>
> You're saying you need a notice to know you can use the work.
Not quite. I agree I don't need a notice. What I am saying is that I might
pass over it an not use it because I don't know it is public domain. I am
saying that the notice can help.
> I'm saying
> the law does not require you to have one to use the work (if it is in
> the public domain).
>
> My understanding is that CC0 is something like this notice that you'd
> want. (But I'm not sure I understand whether CC0 is prescriptive or
> descriptive or both -- does it make the work free or only tell you that
> it already is? I need to research that when I have a chance)
I think it is meant to do both depending on the nature / state of the work it
is applied to. (Or some other recent license I have come across is meant to
operate that way.)
But I think you are still missing something I am trying to get at.
Let's say I make a work that does not have enough originality to it to get a
copyright. Let's say I don't know if it gets a copyright or not. Let's say a
potential user also doesn't know if it gets a copyright or not.
I could slap something like a CC0 on it stating that it is my work and that if
it gets a copyright, I am trying to put it in the public domain or however
the wording goes.
This tells the potential user that it is "safe" if it is PD, it is safe, if it
is copyright, it is under the CC0 license. This could increase the chances of
it getting re-used.
Is that any clearer? All of this might be moot if you had to at least put a
copyright notice on a work to obtain a copyright. And even more so if you had
to register it.
>
> >>With public domain works, you do not have to keep ANY kind of license or
> >>attribution information.
> >
> > Well, depending on who you are. In some circles, holding back on
> > attribution can land you in hot water, no?
>
> Again, I am speaking of legal requirements. Yes, "plagiarism" can land
> you in hot water from a professional reputation perspective, but it is
> not a legal offense. So you could lose your job, but that is not a
> consequence of copyright or copyright licenses.
Yes, I know that.
>
> Noting the parallel comment from Delphine, let me add "under US
> copyright law". Moral rights would apparently complicate this statement
> a bit more.
I know this bit too.
>
> >>This is a "door" that you don't discuss in
> >>"Libre Labyrinth", and it is a much less controversial one, because most
> >>people aren't bothered by tracking attribution, but it is there,
> >>nevertheless. There are even some circumstances under which this can be
> >>a quite onerous requirement (like the BSD advertising clause was).
> >
> > Hey, the CC licenses can suffer from this as well. I haven't figured out
> > any decent solution to propose for this issue yet either.
>
> Yes they can. Me neither.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list