CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence BY NC SA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.

vlidi @slobodnakultura.org vlidi at slobodnakultura.org
Wed Nov 21 06:27:51 EST 2007


Pozdrav svima, i mnogo hvala na ucescu u debati...

Verice, slazem se, "fair use" je prilican problem, jer se cesto ljudi
pozivaju na instituciju tog termina, koji ni u USA nije "stabilan" i nije
precizno definisan unapred, nesto sto podseca na to kako funkcionise cenzura
u Kini - otprilike znamo sta je OK a sta ne, ali je u svakom trenutku moguce
da se nesto dokazuje ili izvodi pred sudom, i da se interperetira... U mnogo
tekstova, cak i u CC FAQ koji treba da prevedemo, "fair use" se navodi kao
nesto sto ima podrazumevano znacenje...

A sto se tice upotrebnog i govornog imena za licence, ne znam, mnogo sam o
tome razmisljao, svi predlozi koje sam cuo su i dalje konstrukti i prilicno
su "rogobatni", u meri u kojoj ne opavdavaju konfuziju koja bi nastala ako
zamenimo dovoljno nezgodan, za nase jezicko podrucije, izraz "Creative
Commons". Pitali smo i ljude iz CC boarda sta misle i kakva su njihova
iskustva u vezi toga:


Rolado Lemos:

Q: Discussing the licenses, is there maybe a semantical problem in
penetration of CC licenses into, let's say, public service? I don't know how
it works in Portuguese, but for an average Slavic language user, who would
be maybe a 55 years old civil servant, it's very hard just because of the
language barrier to imagine licensing this civil servant's work on "Creative
Commons 3.0", not to mention bigger problems in understanding the concept.
Is it possible to maybe rethink the names of licenses  and to maintain the
CC "brand-recognition" for the movement behind the licenses, and to invent
some neutral phrases, without much meaning but easy to recognize things like
flickr, google, etc...?

A: This is a great question, and we had this problem in Brazil as well. The
term Creative Commons in Portuguese is very difficult, even how to pronounce
it. This is a problem that we had from the beginning. But when we started
the project, Creative Commons Brazil launched a challenge, because
Brazilians have this capacity of reincorporating other cultures,
transforming them and giving them back in a completely different way. So we
launched this challenge of who would be the person who would reincorporate
Creative Commons in Portuguese and come up with something that is
meaningful. I called it "the challenge of the utererizacao" - I know this
term is very weird, I will explain where it comes from. There is a famous
hip hop song, where they say: "whoomp there it is, whoomp, there it is."
Everybody knows it and it's very popular in Brazil. But we don't know as
Portuguese speakers how to pronounce "whoomp, there it is." So Brazilians
transformed it into "uuu-te-re-re", that sounds similar.

Q: Does it mean anything?

Nothing. It doesn't mean anything. And then I launched the challenge that
said "we are not going to translate the license - if someone wants, please
go ahead, find nicknames, find other words to refer to this license". Then
the minister of culture Gilberto Gil came with a definition that is called
licença creativa, which means "creative license" -  it was OK, but not that
good... And then a guy from Salvador said: oh, in Portuguese Creative
Commons phonetically sounds like "criei tive como" - "I created because I
had how", and sometimes we adopt that. Because it's plain Portuguese and it
has a similar meaning as the original license. So what I would suggest, I'm
not sure, different cultures have different solutions, but take up this
challenge, let people tell you how you should call it, invent nicknames - it
makes people closer to the idea and they can reinvent the whole thing for
you and can cooperate with you and become re-appropriating, which is for me
the most important thing, how people can re-appropriate these ideas and
recreate them. That happened in Brazil and it's really nice.


Lawrence Lessig:

Q: Talking about licences, the very name of the Creative Commons licenses is
something that derived from, and is inherent to English language. It's
hardly translatable because of the several layers of its meaning, especially
the word common, but the very semantic value, or the spoken word value
differs between the different languages. For example, in this region of
Slavic languages, it's pretty hard to be pronounced and it is pretty hard
for me to imagine fifty-something civil servant issuing a statement and
saying that they would licence public announcements on Creative Commons
Attribution version 3.01. So, have you ever considered  keeping Creative
Commons movement branded as Creative Commons, but giving licenses some
catchy 2.0 name, like flickr, google, digg – something which doesn't mean
anything, but  is easy to be pronnounced in different languages and easy to
be remembered, and not in need of any translation at all?

We think about this all the time. We thought about it when we launched the
licences for the first time, giving the licences particular brand names. And
so that continues to be something we think about. The particular issue of
how to translate the commons is both an opportunity and a problem. It's a
problem because there's not going to be any good translation and you
shouldn't imagine that even within English people understand what it means.
I mean, it's an obscure idea, especially in the United States, so we have
always thought from the very beginning, it was an education process, and
that is an opportunity with it. As you try to get people focus on what it is
this means, they think more clearly about the world that's around them, they
begin to recognize important assets in their culture that are in the commons
technically – parks and roads, and culture and holidays, those are
components of the commons and that everybody experiences whether they have a
word for it or not.  Now, we are open to finding simpler ways to express the
ideas, what's happened is not really by our intention. But what's happened
is that the icons have become a kind of universal expressions. So BY-NC, of
course you have to know something to know what that means, but as a tag that
goes with certain licences it is understandable. Where we see government
institutions beginning to adopt the licences, they are very precise about
what kind of licence they are trying to adopt.



pozdrav,
vlidi.



On 11/21/07, Bon Edi <edibon at eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> Sad jedan predlog... U duh naseg jezika je da se imena ne prevode. Dakle,
> kao
> sto se ne prevodi ime grada New York, tako ne treba prevoditi imena
> licenci
> "Creative Commons" ili "Share Alike"... Prosto, prevode se objasnjenja
> koja se
> odnose na ovaj naziv, pa i nema potrebe da se prave zabune unosenjema ovih
> prevoda.
> Ja bi pre da vise raspravimo o stvarima tipa "attribution", sto u stvari
> treba
> da se odnosi ne na "autorstvo", vec na "navodjenje ili naznacavanje
> autorstva"
> sto u sustini i nije ba ista stvar... Zato predlazem da se nekako uvedu
> definicije stvari na pocetku same licence, pa ako se dogovorimo oko nekog
> naziva
> koji i nije bas u potpunosti precizan, da ga onda definisemo negde u
> okviru
> licence, i posle se pozivanjem na to zna tacno na sta se misli...
>
> Edi
>
> Quoting apascg <apascg at EUnet.yu>:
>
> > Pozdrav,
> >
> > Izvinjavam  se sto komentar stize poslednji dan.
> >
> > Komentar je pre svega dat sa aspekta pravnog znacenja pojedinih izraza.
> >
> > 1. U uvodnom delu u prvom pasusu umesto reci raspolaganje vise odgovara
> izraz
> > koriscenje. Raspolaganje je pre sinonim za prenos vlasnistva, a u ovom
> > slucaju se ne radi o tome.
> >
> > 2. komentar definicije pod 1.c. Distribucija. Predlog: Distribucija je
> > cinjenje javnosti dostupnim primeraka originala ili kopija Dela ili
> > Adaptacije na odgovarajuci nacin, prodajom ili drugim oblikom prenosa
> svojine
> > na primerku. (razlog je cinjenica da se distribucija uvek odnosi na tzv.
> > robne primerke tipa: knjiga, DVD i da se neki izuzeci primenjuju
> iskljucivo u
> > slucaju kada se delo stavlja u promet kao roba a ne kao usluga. Zato bi
> ovo
> > trebalo pojasniti. )
> >
> > 3. Definicija 1d ima najvise veze i sa komentarom prevoda CC, odnosno
> > potrebom prevodjenja.  Cini mi se da je sustina izraza Autorstvo
> > (Attribution) u stvari stvaralacki doprinos (na) Delu ili Adaptaciji
> > (mogucnost da se stvaralastvo ne ogranici monopolom, vec da se ostavi
> > otvorenom za dalje stvaralastvo. ) Predlog: Elementi licence su.... i
> koje su
> > sadrzane u nazivu licence: doprinos stvaralstvu, nekomercijalna upotreba
> i
> > dozvola daljeg koriscenja pod istim uslovima. Znam da deluje malo duze,
> i
> > jeste, ali cini mi se da odrazava smisao. Za ShareAlike bih i sama
> volela da
> > nadjem bolji predlog, ali trenutno ga nemam. Ne radi se o podeli sa
> jednom
> > osobom, radi se o mogucnosti da se delo dalje prosledjuje ne radi
> > zaradjivanja, vec radi nesputanog stvaralastva. Volela bih da cujem
> srecniji
> > predlog za ShareAlike. Nemam ga trenutno.
> >
> > 4. Prevod definicije  1f je jedini moguci u nasem pravu. Samo fizicko
> lice
> > moze da bude autor, jer samo fizicko lice (covek, ne firma ) ima
> mogucnost
> > duhovnog stvaralastva.  Ovaj prevod koji nam je dostavljen je uzi od
> > originala, ali doslovan prevod na nas jezik bio bi netacan.
> >
> >
> > 5. Definicija dela je malo suzena u odnosu na engleski tekst, a nema
> razloga
> > za oprez kao kod definicije originalnog autora pod 1. f. Predlog: Delo
> znaci
> > literarno i/ili umetnicko delo koje se nudi pod uslovima ove licence,
> bez
> > obzira na formu (oblik) u kojoj je delo izrazeno, ukljucujuci i
> digitalnu
> > fomru dela kao sto su:knjiga, pamflet i druga pisana dela- predavanja,
> ..
> >
> > Sve sto je navedeno u engleskom jeziku je ukljuceno i u nas zakon.
> Medjutim,
> > bitno je naglasniti i digitalni oblik.
> >
> > Sto se tice  izvodjenja  i fonograma (interpretacija u nasem pravu), ono
> je
> > u nasem pravu (i u kontinentalnom odnosno pravu EU) srodno pravo (prava
> > posebnih korisnika autorskih dela, cija je privredna ili profesionalna
> > delatnost zasnovana na koriscenju autorskih dela). Autorsko delo i
> predmet
> > srodnog prava (interpretacija, fonogram, emisija, baza podataka,
> videogram)
> > su dve razlicite kategorije. (nisu nikako copyrightable work, potpuno je
> > druga pravna kategorija)
> >
> > Da bi se prevod ucinio prihvaljivim u nasem pravu, predlog kraja
> definicije
> > dela je sledeci:
> > U smislu ove licence upodobljavaju  se autorskom delu i interpretacija ,
> > fonogram i baza podataka- kao prava srodna autorskom a priznata  u
> domacem
> > pravu:
> >
> > 6. I kod definicije javnog saopstavanja treba imati u vidu razliku
> izmedju
> > americkog i naseg (preuzetog iz prava Evropske unije) sistema. I
> cinjenicu da
> > nase pravo razlikuje kao dva oblika izvodjenje i predstavljanje dela
> > (kriterijum razlike je da li je u pitanju scensko delo ili ne).
> > Predlog: Javno saopstavati znaci izvoditi delo neposredno pred publikom
> ili
> > komunicirati delom sa publikom na bilo koji nacin, uklju;ujuci i zicni i
> > bezicni prenos ili javni digitalni prenos; ciniti dostupnim delo publici
> na
> > nacin da pojedinci mogu pristupiti delu u vreme i sa mesta koje sami
> izaberu;
> > predstavljati delo publici na bilo koji nacin i bilo kojim procesom i
> > saopstavati predstavu dela publici ukljucujuci i digitalno izvodjenje,
> > emitovanje i reemitovanje dela bilo kojim znacima, zvucima ili slikom.
> >
> > Javno saopstavanje mora da ukljucuje u definiciji dva oblika:
> saopstavanje
> > ili komunikaciju (tzv. communication right), kao posebno pravo sire od
> drugog
> > prava cinjenja dostupnim (making available). Ovo su dva oblika i kod nas
> u
> > pravu. Ako se saopstavanje definise samo iinteraktivnim cinjenjem ova
> dva
> > oblika (posebna u Direktivi o autorskom pravu u informativnom drustvu
> koja je
> > iz 2000. i implementirana je, doduse sa problemima u Francuskoj, u celoj
> > Evropi) se nece razlikovati. A morala bi.
> >
> > 7. Prevod clana dva je uspesan primer onoga sto sam ja pokusala
> prethodnim
> > predlozima. Fair use je insistitut koji ne postoji u nasem pravu.
> Tipicno
> > americki institut koji ima svoje uslove, ogranicenja.... Kod nas se to
> svodi
> > na izraz koji je upotrebljen "ogranicenja autorskog prava" i u skladu je
> sa
> > tekstom kojim se definise.
> >
> > Pozdrav
> > Verica Vukovic
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Nena Antic
> >   To: Creative Commons Serbia
> >   Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:28 AM
> >   Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence BY
> NC
> > SA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
> >
> >
> >   Naravno!
> >
> >   Nena
> >
> >   Milos Rancic <millosh at lingvistika.org> wrote:
> >     On Nov 20, 2007 3:55 AM, Nena Antic wrote:
> >     > Skracenice BY, NC, SA...se prevode punim nazivom:
> >     > BY - Autorstvo, NC - Nekomercijalno, SA - Deliti pod istim
> uslovima
> >
> >     Neno, koristi mala slova prilikom tipskih opisa licenci (ako gde
> >     treba). Znaci, BY-NC (ako gde treba to napisati tipski) "autorstvo -
> >     nekomercijalno".
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Cc-rs mailing list
> >     Cc-rs at lists.ibiblio.org
> >     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >   _______________________________________________
> >   Cc-rs mailing list
> >   Cc-rs at lists.ibiblio.org
> >   http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-rs/attachments/20071121/9ae666c6/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Cc-rs mailing list