CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence BY NCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.

Nena Antic advocat_studio at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 21 13:50:11 EST 2007


Koncepcija "fair use" je opisana i definisana americkim zakonom o autorskom pravu i odnosi se na ogranicenja iskljucivih prava http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 . Kod nas se prevodi terminom Postena upotreba. 

Nena

apascg <apascg at EUnet.yu> wrote:       Super komentar. Narocito deo and to maintain the CC "brand-recognition" for the  movement behind the licenses
 Ono sto se danas najcesce zove brand, kod nas u pravu zig, definise se kao  : pravno priznanje psiholoske funkcije simbola. Neko ime, neka slika- automatski  podseca na nesto ili se vezuje (tacno ili pogresno) za nesto, aktivira predstavu  koju imamo.
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    vlidi @slobodnakultura.org 
   To: Creative Commons Serbia 
   Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:27    PM
   Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom    nacrtu nacionalne CC licence BY NCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
   

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


      

---------------------------------
    
_______________________________________________
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


       
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-rs/attachments/20071121/dcfc797a/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Cc-rs mailing list