Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Douglas Campbell" <Douglas.Campbell AT natlib.govt.nz>]

Diane,

A huge thanks to CC for their work in this area and for inviting comment.

In New Zealand we don't have the formal concept of public domain (PD) so I'm 
still a little sketchy in this area.  From what I can gather, a work enters 
the (concept of) PD automatically when its copyright expires, and the CC0 
licence allows people to simulate works entering the PD prior to the 
copyright expiring.

1. Is this Public Domain Mark (PDM) to replace the existing Public Domain 
Certification (PDC)?: 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

2. I like that the PDM 0.7 states "no known current copyright restrictions" - 
this appears to create a standard mark that could replace the various ad hoc 
statements being used, eg. in Flickr Commons.

3. Ideally the PDM page would be re-written from the consumer's point of 
view, like existing CC licence pages that say "you are free... under the 
following conditions... with the understanding that...".  The current version 
0.7 is written more from the owner's point of view, which relies on the 
consumer interpreting it correctly.

For example, "you should not imply endorsement" - does that mean sometimes 
it's OK??  ...in which cases??  It might be better to choose one choice and 
state it, eg. "under the following condition... that you do not imply 
endorsement..." and "with the understanding that... this mark may be revoked 
if a previously unknown but legitimate copyright owner is revealed".

4. I think non-binding use guidelines are futile.  Either a work is fair game 
(to be used any way the consumer desires) or it's not - it's too confusing 
for consumers.  I would prefer we had two marks - one with binding use 
guidelines and one without.  

In fact I would be reluctant to release works that have been donated in good 
faith to the National Library under only non-binding use guidelines.  
However, I possibly am misunderstanding what you mean by non-binding - I 
think you mean 'not legally enforceable'?

The potential for 'dis-respectful' use of works is the main issue holding us 
(and many other cultural heritage collecting institutions) back - the content 
we release under no-known-copyright in Flickr Commons is all carefully 
hand-selected as 'safe' - this is very time-consuming.

5. Related to this, I have been meaning to discuss with CC the possibility of 
adding a couple of new 'flavours' to the CC mix (alongside BY, NC, SA, etc.)

5a. NE (No Endorsement) - ie. use is permitted provided the work is 
respected, along the lines of the BBC's Creative Archive Licence pilot - 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/creativearchive/  I think this would mean codifying some 
of your PD norms and use guidelines - but I would want to be able to apply 
these to non-PD works too.  These may not be enforceable under copyright law, 
but possibly would under property law??

5b. IR and IU (Indigenous rights Restrictions/Unrestricted) - the work is 
sensitive to indigenous peoples and may be used only within certain (stated) 
restrictions in context of their culture (or, this is not sensitive in the 
culture so may be freely used).

I think we would be able to release a LOT more content into the CC under a 
BY-NC-SA-NE-IU (or -IR) licence. :)

My suggestions for new CC flavours was going to be the follow-up post to 
these two (where I tried to look at the rights issues facing cultural 
heritage collecting institutions):
http://librarytechnz.natlib.govt.nz/2009/12/look-at-rights-in-cultural-heritage.html
 
http://librarytechnz.natlib.govt.nz/2009/12/what-is-inappropriate-re-use.html

Thanx,
Douglas Campbell
Digital Services Manager
National Library of New Zealand - Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa