4 ms·

I'm curious... if Creative Commons can't even create a public domain license that applies to both US and Europe, then what would it actually take to do so? See

I'm curious... if Creative Commons can't even create a public domain license that applies to both US and Europe, then what would it actually take to do so? Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need.

Taywee 5y ago
Some places, like Germany, don't recognize a public domain at all.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  In a way we do, called Gemeinfrei. But the only way to transfer something to it, is dying and waiting 70 years.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    What is the status of work that no one knows where it came from? A recipe for a cake is written on a paper and left on a bulletin board in town. It has no name and no one witnessed it being posted. Everyone sees it and now knows how to make this cake. The author may or may not be dead for 70 years. Is it illegal to even document this cake recipe? You couldn't legally recount it in a news article or history text book without being able say who the author was and prove that they either granted a copy right or are known to be dead for 70 years? Or worse, you are not only incentivised but essentially obligated to claim the authorship yourself just so you have someone to assign it to? The thing undeniably exists regardless that the legal structure provides no place for it. It's patently ridiculous. (guilty, terrible pun intended).
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      > A recipe for a cake And there we come to the nuance of copyrights, at least in the US: you can't copy the text of the recipe, but the recipe itself don't have protection itself. Specifically, the text of the recipe is literature (which is protected), the recipe itself are instructions (which is not protected). This is the whole justification into clean-room design and reverse-engineering in software. Also psuedonymous or even anonymous publications do have copyright (insert a legalheap of asterisks here). This actually sadly results into something called "orphan works", where they don't knew (or if they knew cannot find the next-of-kin/successor company/maybe even the government where the company was incorporated) where they can ask for permission.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      That's called an orphan work. You can apply §61 UrhG, which in this case would mean donating it to an archive, museum, library or university, who can then search for the author and after turning up empty are allowed to publish it. From there you can probably quote it, citing them as your source.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Well, I imagine they recognize a license saying "you can do anything with this". It probably just has different legal status than public domain.
  - germanier 5y ago
    No. There are certain rights to a work you cannot waive, no matter how much you want to. Even less without actually specifying what "anything" entails.
    - 3np 5y ago
      While you can not waive certain rights, you absolutely can proclaim "you can do anything with this". You can choose to not exercise your legal right to attribution, for example. So what you’re saying is not in conflict with the person you’re replying to. (You can argue that there’s some legal risk at hand here; for example, if someone writes a book with the above and you start selling copies of it claiming you wrote it, the author can still come back and demand that you credit them as author and have that right enforced in court) I think this is great. Case in point: blanket EULA for an image sharing site can not remove your right to be attributed, should your photo end up in an ad campaign or a newspaper. This means that many European newspapers actually make sure to not misattribute photographs, which has the side-effect of improving transparency in news reporting. So grabbing a photo online and wrongfully claiming it’s from the wrong time, place and source is not something that tends to happen in practice. And if it does, there’s a clear path to recourse that doesn’t require "lawyering up", you just file a claim with evidence.
  - davidjytang 5y ago
    I only imagine something like "but you give up the right to sue me if any harm comes from whatever you do with this" would need to be appended to "you can do anything with this".
zinekeller 5y ago
> Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need. Except that's exactly (legally, anyways) sane in Europe (not EU, it predates EU). Read about moral rights, and you will learn the complexities of what the US squishes into a single copyright regime. Note: moral rights was translated from French legal term droits moraux, there's no religious meaning in moral here.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "Except that's exactly sane in Europe" This is up to debate. I am a european resident and I think it is insane, that the reason I am not free to donate my work into the public domain is supposed to be "moral rights".
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    Fair, I should put "legally sane", I lost the nuance there.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    It's not that anyone is denying you your right. You aren't "free" to donate your work to flutbark bargleboff either not because its forbidden but because its undefined. Contract your lawmaker and have them define it legally. Its undefined because there isn't money to be gained by giving stuff away and for practical purposes current solutions seem to be work good enough for practical purposes for those who want to do so robs any such movement of much momentum thus far.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "It's not that anyone is denying you your right" Of course they are. I am not free do do with my IP as I want. (gifting it to everyone). I have to keep ownership. (even though I reject the concept of IP alltogether) But you are right with your explanation why it is like this. There is no money in it to change it for good and current solutions work "good enough" for practical purposes (giving everyone the right to use my IP). So I will likely also just go on use the existing solutions, instead of running against walls and trying to change the laws.

Taywee 5y ago

Some places, like Germany, don't recognize a public domain at all.

hutzlibu 5y ago
In a way we do, called Gemeinfrei. But the only way to transfer something to it, is dying and waiting 70 years.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  What is the status of work that no one knows where it came from? A recipe for a cake is written on a paper and left on a bulletin board in town. It has no name and no one witnessed it being posted. Everyone sees it and now knows how to make this cake. The author may or may not be dead for 70 years. Is it illegal to even document this cake recipe? You couldn't legally recount it in a news article or history text book without being able say who the author was and prove that they either granted a copy right or are known to be dead for 70 years? Or worse, you are not only incentivised but essentially obligated to claim the authorship yourself just so you have someone to assign it to? The thing undeniably exists regardless that the legal structure provides no place for it. It's patently ridiculous. (guilty, terrible pun intended).
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    > A recipe for a cake And there we come to the nuance of copyrights, at least in the US: you can't copy the text of the recipe, but the recipe itself don't have protection itself. Specifically, the text of the recipe is literature (which is protected), the recipe itself are instructions (which is not protected). This is the whole justification into clean-room design and reverse-engineering in software. Also psuedonymous or even anonymous publications do have copyright (insert a legalheap of asterisks here). This actually sadly results into something called "orphan works", where they don't knew (or if they knew cannot find the next-of-kin/successor company/maybe even the government where the company was incorporated) where they can ask for permission.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    That's called an orphan work. You can apply §61 UrhG, which in this case would mean donating it to an archive, museum, library or university, who can then search for the author and after turning up empty are allowed to publish it. From there you can probably quote it, citing them as your source.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Well, I imagine they recognize a license saying "you can do anything with this". It probably just has different legal status than public domain.
- germanier 5y ago
  No. There are certain rights to a work you cannot waive, no matter how much you want to. Even less without actually specifying what "anything" entails.
  - 3np 5y ago
    While you can not waive certain rights, you absolutely can proclaim "you can do anything with this". You can choose to not exercise your legal right to attribution, for example. So what you’re saying is not in conflict with the person you’re replying to. (You can argue that there’s some legal risk at hand here; for example, if someone writes a book with the above and you start selling copies of it claiming you wrote it, the author can still come back and demand that you credit them as author and have that right enforced in court) I think this is great. Case in point: blanket EULA for an image sharing site can not remove your right to be attributed, should your photo end up in an ad campaign or a newspaper. This means that many European newspapers actually make sure to not misattribute photographs, which has the side-effect of improving transparency in news reporting. So grabbing a photo online and wrongfully claiming it’s from the wrong time, place and source is not something that tends to happen in practice. And if it does, there’s a clear path to recourse that doesn’t require "lawyering up", you just file a claim with evidence.
- davidjytang 5y ago
  I only imagine something like "but you give up the right to sue me if any harm comes from whatever you do with this" would need to be appended to "you can do anything with this".

zinekeller 5y ago

> Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need. Except that's exactly (legally, anyways) sane in Europe (not EU, it predates EU). Read about moral rights, and you will learn the complexities of what the US squishes into a single copyright regime. Note: moral rights was translated from French legal term droits moraux, there's no religious meaning in moral here.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"Except that's exactly sane in Europe" This is up to debate. I am a european resident and I think it is insane, that the reason I am not free to donate my work into the public domain is supposed to be "moral rights".
- zinekeller 5y ago
  Fair, I should put "legally sane", I lost the nuance there.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  It's not that anyone is denying you your right. You aren't "free" to donate your work to flutbark bargleboff either not because its forbidden but because its undefined. Contract your lawmaker and have them define it legally. Its undefined because there isn't money to be gained by giving stuff away and for practical purposes current solutions seem to be work good enough for practical purposes for those who want to do so robs any such movement of much momentum thus far.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "It's not that anyone is denying you your right" Of course they are. I am not free do do with my IP as I want. (gifting it to everyone). I have to keep ownership. (even though I reject the concept of IP alltogether) But you are right with your explanation why it is like this. There is no money in it to change it for good and current solutions work "good enough" for practical purposes (giving everyone the right to use my IP). So I will likely also just go on use the existing solutions, instead of running against walls and trying to change the laws.