9 ms·

I don't like it. There might be appropriate circumstances for public domain designations, but I think it seems much more attractive to laypeople than it should.

by adrusi 12y ago

I don't like it. There might be appropriate circumstances for public domain designations, but I think it seems much more attractive to laypeople than it should. Most people should probably stick to licensing their artistic work with something resembling one of the creative commons licenses. It's always been possible to designate an image to the public domain on flickr, by pasting a designation into the description, but this gave it a level of overhead that I think discouraged people who hadn't thought about it much to avoid it. Edit: This is getting downvotes, which I'm not sure I understand, but I'll assume it's because I didn't explain the problems with public domain designations. If there are other reasons, I'd appreciate a comment explaining them. IANAL, but as I understand, there's some debate over whether works can be committed to the public domain at all. This makes some individuals, and a lot of big companies, hesitant to make use of anything with a public domain designation. Most people who try to commit something to the public domain rather than picking a popular non-restrictive license do so in effort to remove all obstacles to people using it, without realizing that there might be more obstacles with a public domain designation than a CC-BY license.

dublinben 12y ago
If I am uploading historical photographs that are in the public domain, I should absolutely have an easy way to mark them as such. Not everyone uses Flickr like Instagram to share the last neat thing they saw on the street.
- adrusi 12y ago
  OK, I overlooked this use-case.
  - jessamyn 12y ago
    Yeah I think you may be focusing on the "creative art" aspect of this and less on other use cases. My mom is a retired photographer and she loves seeing other people use or repurpose (and yes even sell) some of the pictures she takes. In public libraries we want a way to share images the widest way possible and don't always have our own space to do that. I get that you're concerned that people don't understand the public domain, but I think the response to that is more (and better) explanations about what it is and why it's important, not disallowing people access to tools that they want on a platform they use.
    - detaro 12y ago
      Which is a case where she should use CC0 and not the public domain marking.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Don't forget to put them in the Internet Archive!
- erikano 12y ago
  dublinben, do you have any public domain photos of nuclear bomb test explosions?
maxerickson 12y ago
Your concern is why CC released CC0. They don't seem to be ambivalent about people using it.
- adrusi 12y ago
  Actually I have no problem with CC0, as matt4077 explained in a sibling comment, it seems pretty solid. I'm just concerned that people who aren't that interested in licensing but want to make their work as available as possible will choose the public domain option (intended for photos whose copyrights have expired) over the CC0 option.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Sure. I was trying to point out why people might take issue with your comment. CC0 appears in the headline and URL, and one of the early paragraphs of the link says this: But we’ve heard from our community that we’re missing two important designations: Public Domain and Creative Commons 0 (CC0). Many members of our community want to be able to upload images that are no longer protected by copyright and correctly tag them as being in the Public Domain, or they want to release their copyright entirely under CC0. So it was odd for you to not mention CC0 at all in your comment. (I've edited the last paragraph in an attempt to be less abrasive)
  - ghaff 12y ago
    Or, presumably, which were never copyrighted as in the case of "A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties." http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml It's probably also worth noting in this discussion that (as per the referenced link) subjects in the photos may have privacy or publicity rights for photos used for commercial (non-editorial) purposes.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      Contractors that prepare works for the US government can own copyright, and since most of the work for the government is now contracting, this doesn't buy a ton.
matt4077 12y ago
The CC0 has, iirc, a 'rescue' clause in it that specifies the license's intent to retain the least amount of rights possible. A much larger problem with any free license is that it's usually impossible to check a work's complete provenance. I. e. whoever attached the license might not actually be the creator.
sp332 12y ago
Being able to put in things in PD depends on your jurisdiction. In some countries, the original author has certain rights or responsibilities that can't be signed away. But in the USA it's pretty uncontroversial (as far as I know).

by adrusi 12y ago

dublinben 12y ago

If I am uploading historical photographs that are in the public domain, I should absolutely have an easy way to mark them as such. Not everyone uses Flickr like Instagram to share the last neat thing they saw on the street.

adrusi 12y ago
OK, I overlooked this use-case.
- jessamyn 12y ago
  Yeah I think you may be focusing on the "creative art" aspect of this and less on other use cases. My mom is a retired photographer and she loves seeing other people use or repurpose (and yes even sell) some of the pictures she takes. In public libraries we want a way to share images the widest way possible and don't always have our own space to do that. I get that you're concerned that people don't understand the public domain, but I think the response to that is more (and better) explanations about what it is and why it's important, not disallowing people access to tools that they want on a platform they use.
  - detaro 12y ago
    Which is a case where she should use CC0 and not the public domain marking.
toomuchtodo 12y ago
Don't forget to put them in the Internet Archive!
erikano 12y ago
dublinben, do you have any public domain photos of nuclear bomb test explosions?

maxerickson 12y ago

Your concern is why CC released CC0. They don't seem to be ambivalent about people using it.

adrusi 12y ago
Actually I have no problem with CC0, as matt4077 explained in a sibling comment, it seems pretty solid. I'm just concerned that people who aren't that interested in licensing but want to make their work as available as possible will choose the public domain option (intended for photos whose copyrights have expired) over the CC0 option.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Sure. I was trying to point out why people might take issue with your comment. CC0 appears in the headline and URL, and one of the early paragraphs of the link says this: But we’ve heard from our community that we’re missing two important designations: Public Domain and Creative Commons 0 (CC0). Many members of our community want to be able to upload images that are no longer protected by copyright and correctly tag them as being in the Public Domain, or they want to release their copyright entirely under CC0. So it was odd for you to not mention CC0 at all in your comment. (I've edited the last paragraph in an attempt to be less abrasive)
- ghaff 12y ago
  Or, presumably, which were never copyrighted as in the case of "A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties." http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml It's probably also worth noting in this discussion that (as per the referenced link) subjects in the photos may have privacy or publicity rights for photos used for commercial (non-editorial) purposes.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Contractors that prepare works for the US government can own copyright, and since most of the work for the government is now contracting, this doesn't buy a ton.

matt4077 12y ago

The CC0 has, iirc, a 'rescue' clause in it that specifies the license's intent to retain the least amount of rights possible. A much larger problem with any free license is that it's usually impossible to check a work's complete provenance. I. e. whoever attached the license might not actually be the creator.

sp332 12y ago

Being able to put in things in PD depends on your jurisdiction. In some countries, the original author has certain rights or responsibilities that can't be signed away. But in the USA it's pretty uncontroversial (as far as I know).