[Clipart] Responsibility. Was: clipart Digest, Vol 74, Issue 35.. now is just Long!
chovynz at gmail.com
Thu May 20 01:51:28 PDT 2010
You almost have it!
"However, I now see your real concern lies not in the infringement itself,
but in the incidental usage by a third or forth party that could be
extremely offensive, (vis. the Windows - nazi icon) *litigious *or
*downright embarrassing for all parties
Not quite. OCAL doesn't censor (much), in that we don't delete offensive
material. The only "offfending" cliparts are copyright infringers, and these
are removed from the library. Nudity, violence, and adult themed clipart are
still available on the site, and these are marked as NSFW. For example, the
swastika and any images of it are banned in Germany and are offensive to the
German people (and many others), however a clipart of a swastika is
acceptable as Public Domain on the OCAL library. The Windows icon isn't
acceptable, as it is a copyrighted trademark. (We might be working on a set
of tags so that German people aren't subjected to swastikas, but that is a
large can of worms.)
My concern is "unintended copyright breaches", by people who haven't done
their research, trusting OCAL's statement of all PD clipart to be true. I
have no solution as yet.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Duncan Cowan <brendon.cowan at bigpond.com>wrote:
> >> "... "The actual clipart content on open clipart library is Public
> domain." For me, it's about building trust..."
> I finally (click) get the gist of your argument. I must be getting old.. ;)
> From practical experience, and a small amount of legal discussion with my
> old firm's patent and copyright lawyers, I believe that the issue might lie
> within the percentage, incidentality and frequency of 'exposure'. If memory
> serves, the 'percentage' of 'total' image should be no more than approx.
> 30%? but please don't quote me on that. 'Incidentality', obviously refers to
> the 'focus' of the image.. i.e. a rusty beer can in the off foreground of a
> landscape painting does not infringe, nor does anything that may
> happenstance be floating about (t-shirt, headset or book spine.) The third
> is even less likely to occur, IMO, echoed or repetitive use of the article
> within the artwork. Unless you're Escher, or Dali and you're illustrating
> some strange mirrored effect.
> However, I now see your real concern lies not in the infringement itself,
> but in the incidental usage by a third or forth party that could be
> extremely offensive, (vis. the Windows - nazi icon) litigious or downright
> embarrassing for all parties. I'm thinking, child's first birthday
> invitation to Grandma... Which, come to think of it, (click), now explains
> the 'safe' file button on the 'uploads' page, which I blithely assumed to
> mean 'virus checked' or some such, in reference to animated or script
> executable SVG files. (i.e. Adobe Flash etc.)
> Insurance against 'non-safe' third party files is a very interesting, but
> very real dilemma, and I can understand your queried brow. I'm at a loss but
> will endeavor to assist if I may. Perhaps, again, a large part of this could
> be handled by better/clear communication artist to user? I'd happily sign a
> declamation prior to submitting work. "I hereby state that such and such.."
> >> ... I hope you didn't take my reply as a "get back there!" ...
> Not in the slightest, and thank you.
> .. I Am what I Am, I'm... "®Popeye Doyle™ (© All right reserved)"
> Sorry for the lengthy 'post lurk' post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the clipart