|
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 -----
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
|
