[Clipart] Licence

[chovynz]

OCAL tries to provide as many PD cliparts as possible.
Cliparts are not refused on the basis of quality.
If these have any chance of staying on as PD cliparts I will take that.

The end user has to be careful no matter what they do. We try to only
provide
PD clipart, but as shown today, other cliparts can sneak through. It is not
OCAL's responsibilty to make sure end user is being safe or responsible with
what they do.
Keyword is : research.

For now, the WKDesign ones are tagged pd_issue. We are awaiting the reply
from WKDesigns and confirmation. Can we keep them or not? That is up to
WKDesign.
As far as I'm concerned no other action needs to be taken until WKDesign
reply.

If you find any other cliparts that you think have any copyright issue,
please let us know.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Jarod Russel <JarodR at gmx.de> wrote:

> Yeah you are right the whole copyright, trademark thing is confusing. I
> get you with the editorial use but John Q. Public don't know that. He
> reads the license is PD and thinks he can use it for any purpose, what
> does not match in this case. And therefore I think it should not stay on
> OCAL.
>
> Greg Bulmash schrieb:
> > But those aren't copyright rights.  They're trademark rights or rights
> > of publicity.  It's confusing, but it's different than the rights
> > relinquished through the public domain dedication.
> >
> > The wkDesign issue you're bringing up and the celebrity images are two
> > totally different things.
> >
> > And the celebrity images, so long as the copyright issues were
> > satisfied, would be a great addition because they could be used
> > editorially.  You couldn't create certain types of products that used
> > their image, particularly anything that implied an endorsement, but
> > you could use them editorially, such as in a blog post.
> >
> > - Greg
> >
> > Jarod Russel wrote:
> >> But still it could be that the uploader is not the owner and then the
> >> OCAL user agreement is worth nothing in front of a court. Like we
> >> just had it a couple of days ago with images from a celebrity which I
> >> reported. The enduser might have done nothing wrong but the trouble
> >> and the costs you have to go through are not worth the risk i think.
> >>
> >> Francis Bond schrieb:
> >>> G'day,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Jan you do missunderstand. This is not a problem of the website.
> >>>> The website
> >>>> is a public platform. It's not like just 2 or 3 people upload
> >>>> cliparts at
> >>>> OCAL. Everyone can do it. The person who uploads the images has to
> >>>> agree
> >>>> that all cliparts uploaded are dedicated to the public domain and
> >>>> therefore
> >>>> they are. But that is still no guarantee! Mistakes can happen all
> >>>> the time.
> >>>> The responsability to make sure the images you want to use are
> >>>> really in the
> >>>> public domain is up to you and not to OCAL.
> >>>>
> >>> I disagree.   Once someone has loaded something to OCAL then the end
> >>> user should be able to assume in good faith that they are public
> >>> domain.  If the uploader didn't really understand the license then
> >>> that is their problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>



-- 
Cheers
Chovynz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20090722/d4f08ee8/attachment.html>