[Clipart] PD license
Schrijver
eric at authoritism.net
Sun Apr 12 01:56:25 PDT 2009
Greg and Francis are right,
I wrote this earlier already IIRC.
I do love the amount of energy you keep flying around though!
You said tables are turning and you are right,
And I think you’re also right in expecting a backlash from
traditional power structures as they struggle to maintain their hold
in society;
But that’s a lost cause; so IMHO the smartest thing to do is to get
out of their way.
That is what I started doing after some unfortunate encounters with
the industry.
And keep on working on your own stuff, and collaborate with
initiatives like OCAL.
The closer you get to sources of fear and anxiety, the more you will
get, IMHO, poisoned with them; that’s why I don’t like the FSF.
They are sectarian, their essence is negation. They are dividing up
the world in free and non-free. You can even volunteer to become a
‘freedom verifier’.
That’s, IMHO, silly, and an old-fashioned kind of silly.
Me I’m with Oscar W on this one: ‘I like persons better than
principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything
else in the world.’
On-topic:
I do not know who said this earlier about seeking structure in an
inherently chaotic environment,
Doubting, I think, the relevancy of all this structuring work,
But I disagree: I think seeking structure is exactly what should happen.
And that’s why it’s so great you’re going through all this hard
work of cleaning up OCAL.
Because in a sense, a brilliant social alternative to traditional
power structures is already here;
Free radicals from all over the world are colliding in an initiative
like this, and I’m sure as well in many similar projects.
But IMHO we need to make sure the quality of what we output reflects
the quality of our input;
and make sure that the quality not only parallels, but effectively
transcends the quality of commercial offerings?
Eric
ps with regards to views on fsf cf linus torvalds
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html
Op 12 apr 2009, om 09:52 heeft Greg Bulmash het volgende geschreven:
> To copyright a work, you must be the author, the legal agent of the
> author, or someone to whom the ownership of the piece has been legally
> granted. You can't stumble across a work and say "looks like no one
> owns this, so I'll plant a flag and claim it in the name of England."
>
> If you dedicate something to the Public Domain, no one else can
> legally
> claim ownership without making false statements to the copyright
> office.
>
> Yes, they can commercially exploit the image... like making t-shirts
> with it, using it in ads, etc. And the derivative work they create,
> if
> it contains substantial originality, can be copyrighted. But they
> cannot then go and claim a copyright on your image and stop people
> from
> using it in other ways. They can only go after people using their
> work
> or something substantially similar.
>
> With Trademark, because there is a record of the image being made part
> of a public domain repository before anyone began using it in trade,
> their attempt to restrict its use by others would be easily knocked
> down. It's like proving prior art in a patent challenge.
>
> Now, someone could falsely copyright your work or falsely trademark
> it,
> then start making threats, and you might have to pay lawyers to get a
> court to make their stupidity stop. But you could also have your
> neighbor sue you because they believe the color of your car is
> reducing
> their property value and you'd have to pay a lawyer to make that
> stupidity stop too.
>
>
> - Greg
>
>
>
> chovynz wrote:
>> And then Evil Corporation Number 1 comes along, grabs my nicely
>> finished
>> and polished clipart that has taken 6 hours to make, Trademarks and
>> copyrights it into their logo, then sues me for using their logo on
>> my
>> website.
>>
>> /"Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the
>> Work
>> may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
>> built upon, or *otherwise exploited* by anyone for any purpose,
>> *commercial* or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods
>> that have not yet been invented or conceived." /
>>
>> Once you release something to the PD, yes it's irreversible. But it
>> means that anyone can come along and copyright it, removing that
>> particular clipart from the public domain for the next 60 odd years.
>>
>> It's troublesome to me.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Oleg Koptev <koptev.oleg at gmail.com
>> <mailto:koptev.oleg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> chovynz, afaik process of submit something as 'PD' is irreversible
>> process.
>>
>> '/Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of
>> relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights
>> under
>> copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work./'
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
>>
>>
>> 2009/4/12 chovynz <chovynz at gmail.com <mailto:chovynz at gmail.com>>
>>
>> I've been thinking about some things, and something keeps
>> coming
>> back to me.
>> If I upload something with PD license, there is actually
>> nothing
>> stopping people or a business from taking that clipart,
>> copyrighting it then suing me for using my own clipart on my
>> own
>> website/book/CD cover/tshirt/artwork/publicly available and
>> viewed material.
>>
>> Now obviously this has some problems that concern me greatly.
>> First, it's unfair. Second, ANYTHING in the PD can be
>> copyrighted. Third: While I respect a number of people, I
>> don't
>> trust humanity as a whole. There will always be selfish greedy
>> people. While I believe in helping/supporting people, I'm also
>> aware that there are people who don't give two cents for the
>> life of another person. These people have no respect for
>> fairness, or what's right, and there is nothing stopping them
>> from taking a clipart, then copyrighting or trademarking,
>> which
>> then means that the original PD clipart is lost to the
>> public. I
>> think there is a majority of people that would respect the PD
>> license and would continue derivitaves in the same way. But,
>> all
>> it takes is one person or corporation to do copyright
>> something,
>> and that clipart is lost to the public for 50-100 years.
>>
>> There has been a large effort on the part of CC and some other
>> groups to limit this unfairness, however everything on OCAL is
>> in the PD. This concerns me a bit.
>>
>> The goal of OCAL is to provide better and better clipart over
>> time. What is going to happen when someone see's clipart they
>> like and copyrights it, then askes OCAL to remove it from
>> their
>> Library? What is stopping one person or corporation from doing
>> so, to ALL the clipart in the library?
>>
>> I do not currently see a good solution to this problem, but I
>> think it is a future issue that needs thinking about and
>> addressing.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chovynz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clipart mailing list
>> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
>> >
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> C уважением, Коптев Олег
>> With respect, Koptev Oleg
>>
>> Jabber ID - koptevoleg at jabber.ru <mailto:koptevoleg at jabber.ru>
>> WWW — http://ktulhuntu.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chovynz
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clipart mailing list
>> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
More information about the clipart
mailing list