3 ms·

I don't believe it is possible under US law to "relinquish all copyrights". Merely asserting something is in the public domain does not make it so. For instanc

I don't believe it is possible under US law to "relinquish all copyrights". Merely asserting something is in the public domain does not make it so. For instance, I could write a book today and do so... and people are probably safe to do what they want with it. Then tomorrow, when I croak, my family still retains copyright for the next 95 years. They might decide that this is their golden ticket, and everyone who continues to publish it would be in trouble (past actions shouldn't be sanctionable... while alive, I essentially gave license to do so). Even if something is legitimately within the public domain, the courts (in the US) have at times decided to yank works out back out and give them as gifts to the various big licensing regimes (ASCAP, if I remember correctly).

acabal 3y ago
This is what the CC0 license is for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Zero_/_public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Zero_...
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  That doesn't make it public domain. It's not just loosey-goosey term without meaning. Failure to understand the details brings misery.
mod50ack 3y ago
Nope, you're incorrect. It is certainly possible in the United States to put something in the public domain by dedication. It may not be possible in some other countries, but in the US, case law supports the right to dedicate something to the public domain. The CC-Zero waiver is a dedication to the public domain combined with a fallback provision. > For instance, I could write a book today and do so... and people are probably safe to do what they want with it. Then tomorrow, when I croak, my family still retains copyright for the next 95 years. They might decide that this is their golden ticket, and everyone who continues to publish it would be in trouble (past actions shouldn't be sanctionable... while alive, I essentially gave license to do so). If you did not grant an actual license with specific terms, then your reusers are SOL. If you did grant a license with specific terms, then your heirs still have to honor those terms. If you dedicated the work to the public domain, then the work is not copyrighted and your heirs can't do anything about it. Also, copyrights for works created in 1978 or later are not publication+95 (except for works for hire), but life+70. > Even if something is legitimately within the public domain, the courts (in the US) have at times decided to yank works out back out and give them as gifts to the various big licensing regimes (ASCAP, if I remember correctly). The only instance of this happening in the US was the URAA (which was not tied to licensing regimes, but to international pressure to "restore" copyright in works published outside the US which had not complied with the pre-1989 notice requirement). It took an act of Congress, by the way. Contrast this with the EU's early-1990s 20-year retroactive extension of copyrights.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > If you did not grant an actual license with specific terms, If I did, then it is licensed, and not in the public domain. > If you did grant a license with specific terms, then your heirs still have to honor those terms. For those who licensed it prior to my death. For anyone coming upon the work afterwards, they no longer have the option of licensing it. > It took an act of Congress, by the way. All it took was the ruling of a district judge.
rpdillon 3y ago
Sqlite is a good counterexample. https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  US law makes no provision for someone asserting that something is "in the public domain". Saying "but these people asserted it" isn't much of a counter-argument. Are they lawyers? Legal scholars?
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    The Sqlite team has absolutely retained lawyers to advise on how to achieve this. Stanford has a clear page on fair use and the public domain, and specifically cited 'dedication' as one of the four most common ways for a work to arrive in public domain. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ I'm just a random internet guy, but I've studied copyright for 25 years since it's a hobby of mine, and I'm not aware of any basis for your statements in this thread to the effect that works in the U.S. can't be put in the public domain. I'm aware of a lot of counterexamples, however, and I thought it was worth citing one here.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      Their page lists the 4 ways for a work to go into the public domain: 1. The copyright expires. 2. The copyright expires because it wasn't renewed. 3. They dedicate it to the public domain, and then wait for the copyright to expire. 4. Was never eligible for copyright. So, SQLite's almost got it done... they just have to wait the better part of a century, and their quest to put it into the public domain will have succeeded.
      - rpdillon 3y ago
        > They dedicate it to the public domain, and then wait for the copyright to expire. That's not what it says. You've fabricated the part about letting the copyright expire. From that page: > If, upon viewing a work, you see words such as, “This work is dedicated to the public domain,” then it is free for you to use. Sometimes an author deliberately chooses not to protect a work and dedicates the work to the public.

acabal 3y ago

This is what the CC0 license is for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Zero_/_public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Zero_...

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
That doesn't make it public domain. It's not just loosey-goosey term without meaning. Failure to understand the details brings misery.

mod50ack 3y ago

Nope, you're incorrect. It is certainly possible in the United States to put something in the public domain by dedication. It may not be possible in some other countries, but in the US, case law supports the right to dedicate something to the public domain. The CC-Zero waiver is a dedication to the public domain combined with a fallback provision. > For instance, I could write a book today and do so... and people are probably safe to do what they want with it. Then tomorrow, when I croak, my family still retains copyright for the next 95 years. They might decide that this is their golden ticket, and everyone who continues to publish it would be in trouble (past actions shouldn't be sanctionable... while alive, I essentially gave license to do so). If you did not grant an actual license with specific terms, then your reusers are SOL. If you did grant a license with specific terms, then your heirs still have to honor those terms. If you dedicated the work to the public domain, then the work is not copyrighted and your heirs can't do anything about it. Also, copyrights for works created in 1978 or later are not publication+95 (except for works for hire), but life+70. > Even if something is legitimately within the public domain, the courts (in the US) have at times decided to yank works out back out and give them as gifts to the various big licensing regimes (ASCAP, if I remember correctly). The only instance of this happening in the US was the URAA (which was not tied to licensing regimes, but to international pressure to "restore" copyright in works published outside the US which had not complied with the pre-1989 notice requirement). It took an act of Congress, by the way. Contrast this with the EU's early-1990s 20-year retroactive extension of copyrights.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> If you did not grant an actual license with specific terms, If I did, then it is licensed, and not in the public domain. > If you did grant a license with specific terms, then your heirs still have to honor those terms. For those who licensed it prior to my death. For anyone coming upon the work afterwards, they no longer have the option of licensing it. > It took an act of Congress, by the way. All it took was the ruling of a district judge.

rpdillon 3y ago

Sqlite is a good counterexample. https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
US law makes no provision for someone asserting that something is "in the public domain". Saying "but these people asserted it" isn't much of a counter-argument. Are they lawyers? Legal scholars?
- rpdillon 3y ago
  The Sqlite team has absolutely retained lawyers to advise on how to achieve this. Stanford has a clear page on fair use and the public domain, and specifically cited 'dedication' as one of the four most common ways for a work to arrive in public domain. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ I'm just a random internet guy, but I've studied copyright for 25 years since it's a hobby of mine, and I'm not aware of any basis for your statements in this thread to the effect that works in the U.S. can't be put in the public domain. I'm aware of a lot of counterexamples, however, and I thought it was worth citing one here.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Their page lists the 4 ways for a work to go into the public domain: 1. The copyright expires. 2. The copyright expires because it wasn't renewed. 3. They dedicate it to the public domain, and then wait for the copyright to expire. 4. Was never eligible for copyright. So, SQLite's almost got it done... they just have to wait the better part of a century, and their quest to put it into the public domain will have succeeded.
    - rpdillon 3y ago
      > They dedicate it to the public domain, and then wait for the copyright to expire. That's not what it says. You've fabricated the part about letting the copyright expire. From that page: > If, upon viewing a work, you see words such as, “This work is dedicated to the public domain,” then it is free for you to use. Sometimes an author deliberately chooses not to protect a work and dedicates the work to the public.