[Clipart] Clipart License
"Áki G. Karlsson"
aki at akademia.is
Tue Apr 13 05:36:56 PDT 2004
Hi (sorry about the length of this...)
I agree that attribution is not really acceptable for clipart, unless it
can be "hidden" in the svg/png metadata for example...
But isn't it in the spirit of "freedom" in this sense that the artist has
an informed choice of different licenses? That is, I think, the chief
benefit of the CC licenses. They even provide nifty little icons
indicating the different kinds of permission. More importantly, they
provide a venue by which it can be "proven" to an extent that the author
actually did give his permission, should this be contested.
And why is PD not a license? It is a fairly good, unambiguously worded
usage permission granted by the author... as effective as a letter from
the author stating that you can use the work in any way you like. Such a
document clearly has legal value, just like a license, and I even think
that the CC method has been put to the test and proven valid.
Are the software licenses (like GPL and LGPL (or BSD)) even acceptable for
artwork? Does the FSF for example provide the same protection for these
kinds of works that they do for software? especially as this project is
not, per se, bundled as part of a some software.
The European droit d'auteur gives the author a *non-alienable* right "of
honor" to all his works. Therefore the author always retains some form of
ownership over his work, no matter what he does. However, he can exempt
anyone from his "exclusive" rights (to publish, distribute etc.) thus
giving permission that others can treat his work "as if" it were in the
public domain. A formal public domain dedication has to be interpreted in
this sense, as there is no "public domain" in Europe other than for works
where the droit d'auteur has expired (70 yrs from the death of the
author). This holds true even for anonymous works, although
Anyway, I am all for the CC licenses, if such a formal mechanism is
needed. The main issue is informed choice, so a BSD-type license would
also be fine, if its implications are clearly stated.
If licenses are to be embedded in the SVG metadata (which might be a good
idea) a "short version" is required...
PS. So this email is not completely wasted ;) I hereby submit this little
picture of balaenoptera acutorostrata for the "animals" topic. We wouldn't
want to forget the whales, would we?
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:39:17 -0400, Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at math.umd.edu>
> Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:
> <snip: BSD-style license />
>>> If it does, I will contact Lawrence Lessig and ask him if he would be
>>> willing to prepare a Creative Commons license which is essentially
>>> ammounts to "all is permitted".
>> CC already does. Look at their page where you "choose a license".
>> There is Public Domain, Attribution (two flavors), GPL, LGPL.
> 1) GPL and LGPL are *not* "all is permitted" BSD-style licenses. And
> you know it.
> 2) Public Domain is not a license.
> 3) Attribution licenses are *not* "all is permitted" licenses either.
> They require attribution.
> I am talking about a BSD-style license without attribution. The kind
> that, in practice, permits everything that public domain, but the author
> still holds the copyright.
>> The more generous of the "attribution" licenses seems appropriate. It
>> is equivalent to BSD, MIT, and zlib/libpng licenses.
> Attribution is not acceptable for clipart.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5573 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the clipart