[Clipart] Fwd: Copyleft, Public Domain, Copyright
eric at authoritism.net
Tue Mar 31 01:05:16 PDT 2009
Well I saw only had 2/3, here 3, Copyright,
Copyrighting is not something you can do to something,
It is a right that is automatically attributed to the author of a work.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about this, since in the U.S. it
has only been that way since 1989, when they became party to the Berne
Convention, which most of the rest of the world had been since the
early 20th century.
That is why, only in the U.S., you had to register for copyright, and
copyright notices had legal value.
But if I publish a book, I do not have to say (c) me, because it
automatically is the case.
At the same time, because copyrighting is a right granted to the
author of something, you can’t just go and copyright things made by
You are granted copyright when you use work of others to make
something which displays originality (though that is a sketchy concept)
Begin doorgestuurd bericht:
> Van: Schrijver <eric at authoritism.net>
> Datum: 31 maart 2009 09:55:03 GMT+02:00
> Aan: clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> Onderwerp: Antw.: [Clipart] Copyleft, Public Domain, Copyright
> Well I did not say that, it’s not my blog.
> But as far as I know it’s really simple:
> copyright is your right as the *author*
> It’s attributed to you by default (by terms of the Berner Convention)
> So if you release something under a copyleft license, or into the
> Public Domain, you still have copyright.
> Meaning you could at some point make a new version, which you
> license differently.
> Now, if you take public domain art work (which is free to use), and
> do your own thing with it, then your *modifications* to the original
> automatically have your copyright.
> That means, that you can choose to reserve all rights to your
> version which uses public domain imagery.
> That does not keep anyone from using the original imagery.
> But if I’m not mistaken, that’s the difference between distributing
> something public domain, and distributing copyleft.
> When distributing copyleft, you require adaptations to be released
> under the same licence as the original.
> So, Public Domain is more similar to a MIT/X11 style license, and
> Copyleft is more similar to the GPL.
> I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding?
> Op 31 mrt 2009, om 09:45 heeft chovynz het volgende geschreven:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Schrijver <eric at authoritism.net>
>> Firstly, everybody congratulations with the release!
>> Apologies btw that regarding foss matters my focus is so erratic; I
>> did not get back to these last things about copyright but I did read
>> the other reactions, thanks all! In the specific case the guy did
>> actually alter the license in retrospect, I later found out… http://www.roysac.com/blog/2008/08/copyleft-vs-public-domain.html
>> Now, that specific case is not so interesting, but it is really
>> interesting to read your reactions on the matter.
>> I learned something. This concerns me somewhat.
>> Did you just say public domain things CAN be copyrighted by someone?
>> Public domain is not protected from being copyrighted?
>> I read the blog.
>> I think we might need a legal copyright lawyer to comment. Or maybe
>> just point me in the right direction if one has already answered
>> something like this.
>> clipart mailing list
>> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the clipart