[Openfontlibrary] Public Domain?

[Dave Crossland]

On 15/11/06, Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org> wrote:
>
> Looks like I'm answering my own final call...

:-)

> Ok, so, one more counterpoint to the pd debate is how wikipedia uses
> public domain...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain

Okay, this is a big page, and I've tried to grok it all quickly, but I
think you've missed the expired/dedicated distinction. There are two
kinds of public domain.

One is the 'pre 1923' and 'expired' public domain, which is works that
are made before 20thC copyright law came in, or have expired their
natural term of copyright of death of author + 70 years. This is
legitimate. Eg, although this is about paintings and 'capitalised' Art
instead of 'clip art' art....

"Artworks. In short: Consider only those works whose author has died
more than 70 years ago to be in the public domain."
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks

The other is the 'dedicated' public domain, which is the idea of say
CC-PD where you the copyright holder 'dedicate' your work to the
public domain. This appears illegitimate, but widespread, IMHO.

In the USA this is generally thought to be possible, but has big
problems internationally. According to Rick Moen -
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html - this
has not actually been tested in a USA court and so is not as solid as
the existence (social proof) of a CC-PD deed makes out. My
understanding of your research today is in line with this.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cliparts_%28examples%29.png

These are OCAL images used in Wikipedia because they have appear to be
public domain, but IMO probably Wikipedia should consider this a bug
given your first wikipedia link :-(

> What, so they use PD no problem. How is this so?

In essense: Wikipedia has a clear reason to import as much pre-1923
stuff as humanity can lay our hands on. Stuff with a 'Public Domain'
label will inevitably get caught up in this, like OCAL artwork.

> Ok, another perspective
> from Creative Commons is to continue using public domain because of the
> large precedent set by Wikipedia and so forth

I think this is based on a fuzzy expired/dedicated distinction.

> and/or add some language
> at the end of the public domain dedication that says if PD is not
> supported, then it is free/free of copyright completely... there is
> supposedly language on wikipedia that does this, but I can't find it
> now. Does anyone know about this?

I'm not sure this is viable as I've never come across such wording before...

-- 
Regards,
Dave