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

Jon Phillips jon at rejon.org
Sun Mar 22 07:44:15 PDT 2009

I hear you...lets shelve this right now. I think the CC PD declaration
works for what we want and doing more will confuse and distract us
from making the site better IMO



On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Greg Bulmash
<oneminuteinspirations at gmail.com> wrote:
> The use of CC0 isn't a big deal for me as PD/CC0 are pretty much the
> same in the U.S. in terms of rights surrendered with the dedication,
> AFAIK.  It's outside the U.S. where CC0 seems to provide more protection
> to the end-users.
> My problem is that in such a case, you then fork the library with some
> items being PD and some being CC0 and create confusion for users in the
> countries where the difference between the two matters.
> But you cannot just convert all the older works from PD to CC0 because
> those new rights that CC0 covers were not explicitly given up in the PD
> dedication and they cannot legally be presumed to be given up.  If they
> could, then CC0 wouldn't be needed.  All the authors of the PD works
> would need to explicitly rededicate them to CC0.
> This could possibly be set up with a simple click-wrapper on a jump page
> that each author is shown the next time they login to OCAL.  But you'd
> have to track which works have which licensing and the conversion of
> older works (especially the unported works from the previous
> incarnation) to CC0 would be a long and gradual process.
> What I'm not clear on is which countries have the additional rights that
> CC0 covers and how much of a real problem the difference between PD and
> CC0 was causing.  I mean did the need arise after people were getting
> sued, arrested, and receiving nasty C&D letters, or was it someone
> thinking "this *could* eventually be a problem, so let's throw resources
> at it now"?
> - Greg
> Nicu Buculei wrote:
>> Jon Phillips wrote:
>>> 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 for one am *glad* OCAL is not a launch partner for CC0: from Rejon's
>> blog I know that CC0 was in the making for quite some time and if OCAL
>> was one of its target, I would have expected  us to be asked for input
>> during its making, not only after the fact.
>>> 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.
>> In my perception, CC0 was crafted mostly for the branding, as the old PD
>> dedication did not have the words "Creative Commons" anywhere in its name.
>>> 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.
>>> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13304
>>> 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...
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart

Jon Phillips

More information about the clipart mailing list