Cc-europe mailing list

[Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>]

Quick reply to Maarten,

Yes there are assuredly places where we use protected etc.  But we have been trying to shift whenever we encounter those.  E.g., when we did the major upgrade of our FAQs in advance of 4.0's release, and when we published FAQs about data, we use restricted with great frequency.  See:  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

Not perfect, but trying to be intentional.  If there are particularly glaring (and easily fixable) uses, let us know!

Diane

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Lisette Kalshoven <lk AT kl.nl> wrote:

Hi all, 

Disagreeing with Maarten here: I quite often use the market theoretic when explaining copyright (and think it does resonate with a Dutch audience). I think it makes very clear what you can do with a work with a work that is protect by copyright - nothing. The word monopoly is very useful for that. 

In the case of Public Domain vs Copyright Protection is does not work so well however, as ‘no longer a monopoly’ is not how you can describe the Public Domain (because it could also be two market players now)

I do agree that avoiding the term ‘protected by copyright’ is a good idea. The alternative Diane posed ‘use is restricted by copyright’ sounds good in English also quite well in Dutch ‘gebruik wordt beperkt door auteursrecht.’  

Cheers, 

Lisette

-- 
Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven

On 01 Aug 2014, at 15:37, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:

Combining two replies below

Hi Diane, 

Thanks for the reply. Interest ingly, I did a really quick scan of the cc.org website. I went to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ and looked for terms like protect or restrict. First sentence I found was “Our licenses do not affect freedoms that the law grants to users of creative works otherwise protected by copyright”, which actually triggered this mail.

So if I understand correctly it is your point that we should use ‘protected by copyright’ only very sparsely? 

Hi John,

I would never use market rhetorics like monopolies, it doesn’t resonate in Dutch culture I think. Dutch Culture like access more than markets. I believe the same dynamics made that downloading infringing copyrighted material from the Internet was not enforced or policed in our country. 

Do other people use market rhetorics?

Cheers,

Maarten  

-- 

Kennisland  

| www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra

On 1 Aug 2014 at 15:22:15 , Diane Peters (diane AT creativecommons.org) wrote:

Hi Maarten,

A quick note from over here.  Since the days of Mike L. who is an advocate of such positioning and with whom many of us wholeheartedly agree, we've tried to incorporate more consistently the notion of "copyright restrictions" or variations thereon in our main FAQs, our blog posts, our webpages, and other messaging.  At times it can be hard to incorporate, and our learning has been it cannot always be achieved depending on audience or particular usage.  But we do try to be intentional with each usage, and use as a default "otherwise restricted by ©" or similar when possible.  This speaks to the point of view of the reuser -- the public -- often considered secondary instead of primary where copyright is concerned.  

Eager to watch how this thread develops to see if there are ways we can improve or coordinate on messaging. 

Diane

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:

Hi all,

I’ve been thinking about the rhetorics that we’ve been using at Creative Commons Netherlands. 

I wanted to augment a Dutch text on the public domain starting from the idea of “Public Domain is the rule, copyright is the exception” from the public domain manifesto. I noticed that I got stuck in trying to explain that copyright protects its creators. Protects has such a positive connotation that I find it difficult to explain why public domain has so many merits. Instead of saying ‘copyright protects’ I thought about changing the explanation of copyright to ‘copyright limits use’. 

I was wondering if you have thoughts about this kind of rhetorics. Do you in your language/country/work say that copyright protects creators or that it limits use? Why did you adopt one form over the other and what kind of reactions did you get from using that kind of rhetorics?

Thanks,

Maarten Zeinstra 

-- 

Kennisland   

| www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra

_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe

_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe