[cc-community] Open Definition 2.0 released

Andres Guadamuz anduril13 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 03:06:56 EDT 2014

Definitions and declarations are not legally binding, they are 
statements of intent and provide a standard of practice. They have to be 
general in principle, and to add caveats like "this definition does not 
apply to X country" sis counter productive.

The Declaration of Human Rights does not say "you may find that your 
human rights do not work if you are in a territory that is under the 
control of ISIS".


On 08/10/2014 08:23, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> On 2014-10-07 20:19, Timothy Vollmer wrote:
>> FYI
>> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43812
>> http://blog.okfn.org/2014/10/07/open-definition-v2-0-released-major-update-of-essential-standard-for-open-data-and-open-content/
> Is this supposed to be a global definition?
> If the answer is "yes", it bound to mislead creators.
> It says:
>    "Any content released under an Open Definition-conformant license
>     means that *anyone* can “freely access, use, modify, and share that
>     content, for any purpose, subject, at most, to requirements that
>     preserve provenance and openness.” (my emphasis)
> And goes on to say:
>    "The CC0 Public Domain Dedication is also aligned with the Open
>     Definition."
> I would wish that this was true everywhere in the world.
> Unfortunately, it is not.
> In Norway, by law, if you publicly perform, or reproduce, materials
> that are in the Public Domain (because the creator dedicated his/her
> work to the public domain), you'll have to pay a /levy/ to one the
> national collection agencies that oversees that particular artform
> (e.g.GRAMO for music, KOPINOR for text).
> Why it may sound bizarre to you, the fact is that Norwegian collection
> agencies has successfully managed to get it into the law a provison
> that entails that dedicating anything to the public domain anywhere
> in the world effectivly transfer management of its rights /in Norway/
> to the collection agency.  They can legally do this, because dedicating
> stuff to the public domain means that the creator is no longer in a
> postion to manage its copyright.
> Having this provision in the law empowers the collection agencies to
> charge for material in the public domain, thus making sure that it
> is just as expensive use works in the public domain as it is to
> use works they rights-manage on behalf of their members.
> I know Norway is a small country, but I think we still should be
> covered under "anyone".  The continued use of the CC0 CC0 Public
> Domain Dedication excludes a lot of good material from the
> Norwegian commons.  I guess I can do nothing to depreciate it,
> be people need to be told that if they use the CC0 Public Domain
> Dedication, their work will only be free to use to anyone outside
> Norway.
> I think people should be encouraged to dual license: CC-BY for Norway,
> and CC0 for the rest of the world.  I now have a letter from the
> department of culture confirming that the collection agencies are
> entitled to a levy if one uses works in the public domain, but not
> for those under copyright with a free culture license (i.e. CC-BY).

More information about the cc-community mailing list