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

Jon Phillips jon at rejon.org
Wed Jun 16 18:27:21 PDT 2010 

I haven't kept totally abreast on everything, but if the trust of a source
can't be verified, I don't think the file should be included.

Jon

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:22 AM, chovynz <chovynz at gmail.com> wrote:

>  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> 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> <nkinkade at creativecommons.org>  To:
>> chovynz at gmail.com  CC: 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> <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
>> > 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
>> 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)
>
>
>


-- 
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/20100617/786eda3e/attachment.html>

More information about the clipart mailing list