3 ms·

I'm curious about their reasoning for choosing Creative Commons Zero over the public domain. I'm fond of the public domain; I've released some of my software[0]

by delish 10y ago

I'm curious about their reasoning for choosing Creative Commons Zero over the public domain. I'm fond of the public domain; I've released some of my software[0] into the public domain. Cynically, I think it's more fashionable and branded to license something CC0 than declare it public domain. Despite my cynicism, I like that they're doing this. The article says: > Enabled by the Museum's move to open access, we also announced today a series of major new partnerships—with Creative Commons, the Wikimedia community, Artstor . . . We'll be blogging about these partnerships in the coming weeks . . . I suppose releasing pictures into the public domain doesn't lend itself to "major new partnerships." ;). [0] not that anybody's ever used it!

subliminalbrad 10y ago
Many countries don't have a concept of public domain. CC0 is a better international baseline to achieve the same thing.
brudgers 10y ago
I am not a lawyer. It is possible that the Met has licensed some|many|all of the images from their authors. If so, then I would not be surprised if the terms of such licenses are grounded in copyright and while the licenses may grant very permissive usage and relicensing rights, the licensing rights are unlikely to have provisions allowing the Met to terminate the author's rights on behalf of the author as would be required to place a work in the public domain. Creative Commons exists to avoid some complexities that come with placing work in the public domain when copyright would otherwise obtain. But again IANAL.
jacobr1 10y ago
In some jurisdictions, you aren't actually allowed to release things to the "public domain". In many where you are allowed, there is specific language that must be used to make it binding. In some others, you can allow copying ... but you still are liable for uses of the work. So in that case you want to create something that waives the liability at matches the impact of US public domain declaration. CC0 is just to tool to allow you to declare something in the public domain on world-wide basis that meets the standards of as many jurisdictions as possible and matches the expectations of most in the western world of what public domain entails. If you just add a header to your software saying "I release this work to the public domain." You probably actually didn't.
- delish 10y ago
  I've read that on CC's website. Can you point me to some examples where US'ians (of which I am one) declared something public domain, and some country acted against someone who used the US'ians work?
  - fossuser 10y ago
    I think it's more that it's poorly legally defined (I'm not a lawyer). By default copyright grants you five rights which I think last until 75 years after you die (90 for contract work if I remember correctly) [1]. - The right to reproduce the copyrighted work - The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work - The right to distribute copies of the work to the public - The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly - The right to display the copyrighted work publicly I think the creative commons license exists to give explicit perpetual and irrevocable access to these five rights - public domain is work where the copyright has expired or was done by a public organization like the government. It's my understanding loosely saying 'I release this as public domain' doesn't give as much of a guarantee since it's not possible to give up your copyright that way - you could later argue you thought public domain meant something different. It didn't used to be this way in the US. Copyright was retroactively extended and made default (you used to have to register to get its protection). It was originally intended to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts' with limited time monopolies as the means to do so for the public benefit. It was meant as a incentive to create - the retroactive extension doesn't follow in this context since work that already exists didn't need incentive to be created. You could also argue that it's unlikely you'd need the rights after you're dead. Today it hurts the public more than it helps. [1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
  - Hello71 10y ago
    even GPL has not really been tested in court (VMware case doesn't count yet), so the odds of CC0 being tested is low. however, there are (at least) two good reasons for using CC0 anyways: 1. there is arguably a chilling effect if you make up your own license. I don't know how much that applies in this case, but look at how json is being removed from Debian and has been banned from Fedora for the undefinable phrasing in its license. this leads me to 2. just because it has not been tested doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; I am not aware of anyone who has been killed by a PC falling on their head, but if I were to attempt mounting a PC on my ceiling, I would seek help rather than cobbling something I just made up. even better, if there are plans on the internet that tens of engineers have verified to be reasonable, I should use those instead of complaining that they are too "fashionable".
davidgerard 10y ago
CC0 is a legally formalised version of public domain, and this can be useful. The partnerships are to get the word out and make the images readily available for use, so they do the job of spreading the works and publicising the works and the museum. Wikimedia blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/the-met-public-art-creative-commons/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/the-met-public-art-cre... tl;dr this is actually pretty awesome, and we have a Wikimedian In Residence there to help.

by delish 10y ago

subliminalbrad 10y ago

Many countries don't have a concept of public domain. CC0 is a better international baseline to achieve the same thing.

brudgers 10y ago

I am not a lawyer. It is possible that the Met has licensed some|many|all of the images from their authors. If so, then I would not be surprised if the terms of such licenses are grounded in copyright and while the licenses may grant very permissive usage and relicensing rights, the licensing rights are unlikely to have provisions allowing the Met to terminate the author's rights on behalf of the author as would be required to place a work in the public domain. Creative Commons exists to avoid some complexities that come with placing work in the public domain when copyright would otherwise obtain. But again IANAL.

jacobr1 10y ago

In some jurisdictions, you aren't actually allowed to release things to the "public domain". In many where you are allowed, there is specific language that must be used to make it binding. In some others, you can allow copying ... but you still are liable for uses of the work. So in that case you want to create something that waives the liability at matches the impact of US public domain declaration. CC0 is just to tool to allow you to declare something in the public domain on world-wide basis that meets the standards of as many jurisdictions as possible and matches the expectations of most in the western world of what public domain entails. If you just add a header to your software saying "I release this work to the public domain." You probably actually didn't.

delish 10y ago
I've read that on CC's website. Can you point me to some examples where US'ians (of which I am one) declared something public domain, and some country acted against someone who used the US'ians work?
- fossuser 10y ago
  I think it's more that it's poorly legally defined (I'm not a lawyer). By default copyright grants you five rights which I think last until 75 years after you die (90 for contract work if I remember correctly) [1]. - The right to reproduce the copyrighted work - The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work - The right to distribute copies of the work to the public - The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly - The right to display the copyrighted work publicly I think the creative commons license exists to give explicit perpetual and irrevocable access to these five rights - public domain is work where the copyright has expired or was done by a public organization like the government. It's my understanding loosely saying 'I release this as public domain' doesn't give as much of a guarantee since it's not possible to give up your copyright that way - you could later argue you thought public domain meant something different. It didn't used to be this way in the US. Copyright was retroactively extended and made default (you used to have to register to get its protection). It was originally intended to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts' with limited time monopolies as the means to do so for the public benefit. It was meant as a incentive to create - the retroactive extension doesn't follow in this context since work that already exists didn't need incentive to be created. You could also argue that it's unlikely you'd need the rights after you're dead. Today it hurts the public more than it helps. [1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
- Hello71 10y ago
  even GPL has not really been tested in court (VMware case doesn't count yet), so the odds of CC0 being tested is low. however, there are (at least) two good reasons for using CC0 anyways: 1. there is arguably a chilling effect if you make up your own license. I don't know how much that applies in this case, but look at how json is being removed from Debian and has been banned from Fedora for the undefinable phrasing in its license. this leads me to 2. just because it has not been tested doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; I am not aware of anyone who has been killed by a PC falling on their head, but if I were to attempt mounting a PC on my ceiling, I would seek help rather than cobbling something I just made up. even better, if there are plans on the internet that tens of engineers have verified to be reasonable, I should use those instead of complaining that they are too "fashionable".

davidgerard 10y ago

CC0 is a legally formalised version of public domain, and this can be useful. The partnerships are to get the word out and make the images readily available for use, so they do the job of spreading the works and publicising the works and the museum. Wikimedia blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/the-met-public-art-creative-commons/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/the-met-public-art-cre... tl;dr this is actually pretty awesome, and we have a Wikimedian In Residence there to help.