Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>]

I think the main previous comment of mine that still applies is a
preference to change the human-readable version to read from the user's
point of view.  I just discovered that the PDM page does in fact say
"You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for
commercial purposes, all without asking permission first" but it is
hidden in a pop-up window.

I realise the voice used in this statement is consistent with the CC0
statement, but they are both inconsistent with the six commonly-used
licences.  Part of the beauty and power of those licences comes from an
end-user being able to read and understand what it allows them to do.
The CC0 and PDM don't offer that.  When I read the CC0 it feels like a
dead-end - it requires me to interpret what it means, I'm at a loss to
know - I still feel like I would need to get legal advice before using
the work.

At the least, can we please expose the "You can..." statement on the
PDM page so it is always visible?

We'll take a look at that as one of the options.  Please keep in mind that we want to keep it easily accessible, understandable and as uncluttered as possible (not that Public Domain Freedoms constitute clutter by any definition!).

 

In New Zealand, the government has recently released NZGOAL (New
Zealand Government Open Access and Licencing framework)
http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/nzgoal
It basically recommends using CC licences (with some modifications).

Yes, we were very excited to see that finally released.

 

It has included a no-known-copyright statement to be used in the
interim (it intends to move to this PDM when it is available).  The
words it currently recommends (in paragraph 150):
------------
To the best of [name of agency]’s knowledge, under New Zealand law:
* there is no copyright or other intellectual property rights in this
[identify material in question] in New Zealand; and
* it may be copied and otherwise re-used in New Zealand without
copyright or other intellectual property right related restriction.
[[Name of agency] will not be liable to you, on any legal basis
(including negligence), for any loss or damage you suffer through your
use of this material, except in those cases where the law does not allow
us to exclude or limit our liability to you.]
------------
Do you think the proposed PDM will provide the same coverage?

The PDM does not require that a person applying it to a work have completed any particular level of diligence in advance of its use, or have arrived with any particular degree of confidence at the conclusion that a work is free of copyright restrictions before its use.  We want and need the appliers of the mark to exercise their own judgment about how comfortable they need to be, and how much diligence they need to have performed, before they apply the mark to a work they are publishing.  Attempting to standardize that through a statement of belief or knowledge on the deed makes the mark for all effective purposes only usable by those who have met that standard.  That isn't feasible or practical, and it isn't in keeping with the approach we have adopted for our licenses and other legal tools.

That said, PDM does nothing to preclude users of the mark from setting their own standards for publication, just as they do currently.  We fully expect that some (and very likely most if not all) institutions will establish internal processes for vetting the copyright status of a work and deciding when they are comfortable enough with that status to use the mark.  Again, we believe those processes, standards and comfort levels will vary institution to institution, as it currently does and as it should.

It's worth reiterating here that many institutions currently publishing works with "no known copyright" or similar indicator often reference facts about the work that are useful to the determination of whether a work is in the public domain.  The first version of PDM will allow those using the mark to embed a link back to the page where the work is published, where those facts can be easily displayed.  (Click on the title of the work under Work Details on the sample deed and then on the picture itself, and you'll see an example of  additional information.)  Those underlying facts can be useful to those coming across a marked work, and assist them in making their own independent assessment of whether a work is free of copyright, with whatever degree of confidence they require.  We are already planning ahead to a future version of PDM where underlying facts can be associated via metadata with a marked work.

As for warranties, just like our licenses the current version is clear on its face that the person identifying a work with the mark isn't making any warranties and disclaims all liability.  And just like our licenses, we expect that some institutions and users of the PDM will offer a warranty -- nothing precludes that in the PDM.  We may think about how to make that possibility more apparent on the deed. 

Finally, your question raises jurisdiction.  We know that works free of copyright in one jurisdiction may not be free of copyright in others.  As noted in response to another email on this list, we are already planning to include a notice to that effect on in the Other Information section of the deed, to alert users to this reality.  

Thanx,
Douglas

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
Creative Commons
171 Second St, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA  94105
office: +1 415-369-8480
fax: +1 415-278-9419
cell: +1 503-803-8338
skype:  peterspdx
email:diane AT creativecommons.org
______________________________________

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal advice from a licensed attorney.