[Clipart] Librarians be aware of http://www.freeclipartnow.com

Wed Jun 16 18:22:17 PDT 2010

Jon; So in terms of these two questions, what do you think is the better 
way forward?
 > The first is here. 
http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/clipart/2010-June/010730.html, 
self-explanatory.
 >
 > The second is 
here.http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/clipart/2010-June/010731.html. 
Part of the question is "If a site claims it's 'clipart' to be PD, can 
they put restrictions on those clipart, like "You can not upload this to 
a competitive venture." Is their statement, legally invalid, and is it 
still ok to take their clipart and put it on our site, especially if 
they use a different format. "
 > Please read the entire thread so that you know where we are up to in 
the discussion.

Do we continue to allow clipart uploads from freeclipartnow, with the 
understanding that FCN uses only jpg's, we use svg's, They may be just a 
mining site, we are an actual library, the exception phrase is not a 
valid phrase to be used on PD clipart, and we carry on, and IF a 
takedown notice request come in, we follow it up then, and only then?

OR

Do we not allow cliparts from that site to be uploaded, to build up the 
"trust" level of OCAL's users?

(I hope you've read all the emails regarding this thread! There's lots 
of info in it!)

Cheers
Chovynz

On 17/06/2010 1:04 p.m., Jon Phillips wrote:
> Nathan is a good friend of mine. He is a right on.
>
> PD means no restrictions whatsoever. So, if someone puts some crap 
> language around something saying "You can use this for any reason 
> except if you are from USA." That is no longer in the public domain.
>
> As I've always said, if in doubt, throw it out.
>
> But, I'm also not paranoid either...since our servers are in the USA, 
> we have the DMCA safe harborprovisions which give us 24-36 hours to be 
> notified of and to act upon the request for a takedown.
>
> What we need is to put some DMCA procedure on the site, in the footer 
> somewhere like: http://creativecommons.org/policies/ and
> http://creativecommons.org/dmca/
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:23 AM, chovynz <chovynz at gmail.com 
> <mailto:chovynz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Guys, please remember to "reply to all" or put the mailing list
>     in the replies. :) I've had two replies so far which would be
>     better on the mailing list than to me directly.
>
>     Here's a reply from a chap at Creative Commons to the discussions
>     we've had. Start from the bottom up.
>
>     Cheers
>     Choyvnz
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: 	Re: A comment from Chovynz
>     Date: 	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:04:56 -0400
>     From: 	Nathan Kinkade <nkinkade at creativecommons.org>
>     <mailto:nkinkade at creativecommons.org>
>     To: 	chovynz at gmail.com <mailto:chovynz at gmail.com>
>     CC: 	info at creativecommons.org <mailto:info at creativecommons.org>
>
>
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I have to state up front that, as Tobias stated for you on the list,
>     neither am I lawyer. I have been answering questions like this for a
>     long time, but none of it should be taken for fact or legal advice.
>     Also, CC isn't a license law firm and isn't able to provide legal
>     advice. What I can do is to give you my take on the matter based on
>     how I understand things to work.
>
>     First thread:
>
>     CC0 is not a license; it is more like a waiver or badge of intent.
>     It's an important distinction. CC0 should be used by copyright
>     holders who would like to waive as many rights as applicable law
>     allows. The PD document should be used by people who want to tag or
>     mark public domain works they find as being in the public domain to
>     the best of their knowledge. I don't think someone should be tagging
>     a public domain work with a CC0 badge. Instead, I think the PD badge
>     is more appropriate:
>
>     http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/
>
>     Second thread:
>
>     I couldn't read the whole thing, sorry. It's just too long, and we
>     are too few at CC. I scanned it, though, and really the matter comes
>     down to this: risk assessment. If they published something on their
>     site and *say* that it's "public domain," except for this that and the
>     other thing, how will that stand up in court, which is all that really
>     matters at the end of the day? If they tell you to take it down, you
>     do. If they sue you, it's another matter. Likewise, it's another
>     matter if someone uses it from OCAL then gets sued by the people who
>     own it. Their claim that it is public domain, but with some
>     exceptions, may just be a semantic difference. Maybe what they mean
>     to say is: "This is *practically* public domain, but respect these few
>     things. My only advice is to simply contact that site for
>     clarification, if you haven't already.
>
>     This may not be a satisfactory answer, but there is no other, really,
>     except for giving out opinions. When all is said and done, what
>     anyone says, lawyer or not, means nothing unless they have the
>     opportunity to argue and win their point in a court before a judge.
>     This is why I say it's about risk assessment. Are you prepared to
>     take the chance that they will sue you or some user of OCAL.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Nathan
>
>
>     On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Creative Commons
>     <info at creativecommons.org> <mailto:info at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>     > A new submission (form: "Contact")
>     > ============================================
>     > Submitted on: June 16, 2010
>     > Via: /
>     > By 118.92.181.42 (visitor IP).
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > -----------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > Name:                           Chovynz
>     > Email: chovynz at gmail.com <mailto:chovynz at gmail.com>
>     > Subject::                       General information
>     > Website: http://openclipart.org/
>     >
>     > Message:
>     > I am a Librarian for Open Clipart Library. We use the Public
>     Domain Waiver for our clipart.
>     >
>     > I have two questions that I would really really appreciate you
>     guys taking some time to answer.
>     >
>     > The first is here.
>     http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/clipart/2010-June/010730.html,
>     self-explanatory.
>     >
>     > The second is
>     here.http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/clipart/2010-June/010731.html.
>     Part of the question is "If a site claims it's 'clipart' to be PD,
>     can they put restrictions on those clipart, like "You can not
>     upload this to a competitive venture." Is their statement, legally
>     invalid, and is it still ok to take their clipart and put it on
>     our site, especially if they use a different format. "
>     > Please read the entire thread so that you know where we are up
>     to in the discussion.
>     >
>     > Where does legality, and ethics come into this?
>     >
>     > Thank you for your time. Please feel free to email me any
>     answer, and I'll upload it to the mailing list.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     clipart mailing list
>     clipart at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:clipart at lists.freedesktop.org>
>     http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jon Phillips
> http://rejon.org/
> http://fabricatorz.com/
> http://status.net/
> http://rejon.status.net + skype: kidproto
> +1.415.830.3884 (sf/global)
> +86.187.1003.9974 (china)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20100617/b5808fee/attachment.html>