[Clipart] Then what are the legal problems of CC-PD with regards to OCAL?

Jon Phillips jon at rejon.org
Wed Mar 11 13:14:08 PDT 2009

First of all, CC public domain dedication is not a license whatsoever,
and whatever we felt like it was doing, it more than likely is not
actually doing.

Check out this good write-up and then follow the link in the article
to the cc announcement:



Also, just to let you guys know, your comments and feedback directly
effected some of the comments, especially making the url show that CC0
is not a license either:


All concerns have been heard to CC people about how CC Zero feels like
just another license or that a rightsholder is losing something (aka,
rights), rather than gaining some thing by using cc zero pd tool.

Effectively, releasing something into the public domain is releasing
rights to a creative work one has, or some creative work where the
copyright has expired, as is the case with really old works. This is
what we have been trying to accomplish with the use of the CC public
domain dedication at Open Clip Art Library by using the CC Public
Domain Dedication for 5 years. Now, with the CC Zero tool we have an
option which is much much more effective and takes into account legal
jurisdictions internationally.

I was trying to get us to be a launch partner for the big announcement
today at Emerging Technology Conference, but since didn't appear we
could come to agreement, CC launched with two science partners. This
is fine, of course. And, our discussion directly have been read at CC
by lawyers and the people in charge. Our conversation helped to shape
the course of CC Zero, and our project specifically has been a target
of CC Zero in the past as well, because I worked there and pushed hard
on this project for a few years.

I've been lobbying hard for an updated CC PD dedication at CC for
ages, so hopefully you guys can see past the branding and look at the
functionality and how beneficial it is for our project.

Ok, check out the link below and lets talk some more about CC Zero. I
still am hopeful we can come to a general consensus about using CC
Zero at some date for uploads.


NOTE: To all, I'm just bringing this up for discussion on this list.
After we talk about, hopefully we can chart a course of action...


On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Schrijver <eric at authoritism.net> wrote:
> Why I think the licence change is a bad idea, is because I am still
> not aware of exactly what it is that is wrong with the original one.
> I for one, do not see in what way CCPD will have any detrimental
> effect on the works in OCAL. I can not really imagine what it would be
> in European copyright laws. I know the Dutch one, and I don’t see such
> a thing.
> You can not give up copyright in Europe, just as you can not in the
> US, because it is automatically assigned to you by the terms of the
> Berner convention. So what? I actually really like that. Makes me feel
> more secure as an author, that regardless of legalities, the right to
> call myself a works author are pretty much set in stone.
> What I think is mistake here, is in looking at the licences as the
> tools that can solve ambigouities in jurisdiction. It is
> *jurisprudence* that does, and a general education of the public.
> I think the more important stuff to be done is in this area, because
> regarding copyright etc., the FUD is immense.
> And what is most important to me in this case,
> The change CCPD to CC0 is probably small in legal terms.
> But the difference in their rhetorical value is immense.
> ‘Dedicating something to the public domain’ is a concept I can grasp,
> and which sounds like a great thing to do. It is *you* who *dedicates*
> something to the *public good*.
> CC0’s emphasis on giving up *as much rights as possible* makes me
> reapprehensive.
> I want to be the one who very clearly decides what rights I give up
> and why.
> This is the reason why CC-licences are appealing to authors in the
> first place: because they give you the flexibility to do so.
> CC0 does not *come across* as being about this. It probably *is*, but
> then IMHO it should be *these* virtues that we are talking about.
> Otherwise I feel this sort of thing to be alienating to nonFOSS people.
> So in short, I think a licence change like this is bad for the image
> of OCAL to the world outside FOSS. Not because there is anything
> inherently wrong with it, but because a change like this will always
> trigger the reaction: ‘but wait, am I in some way deprived of
> something?’
> So if you can’t make the benefits very clear at the same time, it’s
> IMHO a shoot-in-the-foot.
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart

Jon Phillips

More information about the clipart mailing list