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

[Rentfro, Jody]

Explanation of use:
I used some of the images from OCAL for the state UIL contest for music memory. It is non-profit, however if they print it the music maps they will be sold to schools to cover the cost of the printing. It is for educational use.
They paid me to create some of the art and assemble a montage of images for the music maps.

Question:
This email has me worried that even PD and CC images may not be truly free for any use. Are they?


Jody Rentfro
Technology Specialist
972-350-1824
________________________________
From: clipart-bounces+rentfroj=lisd.net at lists.freedesktop.org [clipart-bounces+rentfroj=lisd.net at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of chovynz [chovynz at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:23 PM
To: clipart
Subject: Re: [Clipart] Librarians be aware of http://www.freeclipartnow.com

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.
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20100617/c38c3534/attachment.html>