Quote:
Originally Posted by Trane
From what I read at CC on the CC0 "Public Domain" license, there are two types of CC0 and therefore 2 different logos... one is a C with a slash line through it.... this is the "Public Domain mark" intended for works with "no known copyright" such as very old works, etc. Libraries or museums might use this mark when posting certain materials.
|
Just for reference, these are the two you are discussing:
* * *
Public Domain Mark (PDM):
https://creativecommons.org/share-yo...ic-domain/pdm/
The Public Domain Mark is really just a helpful nice little icon to try to quickly show Public Domain status of a work... but it really means bupkis.
* * *
CC0:
https://creativecommons.org/share-yo...ic-domain/cc0/
* * *
Side Note: Wow, I missed this article about a week ago on Techdirt,
The Met Goes Public Domain With CC0, But It Shouldn't Have To. It covers some of the potential legal problems that can occur with those two marks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trane
Imo it is not false information to include the author's license info. ? (Edit: Maybe you were thinking of the "Public Domain mark" and no, I would not use works with that mark as I don't know if the person who assigned it knows if the copyright has expired or not... plus the pictures I need are current pictures taken by the creators of the work, so the CC0 0-slash license applies.)
|
Ahhh... I understood incorrectly. I was thinking you were sticking it on images willy nilly... not those released specifically under the CC0.
As an example, if you grabbed the Sample Image I created above (no easily identifiable copyright on it), included it in your book, and smacked a CC0 on it. THAT is what I meant by "no information would be better than false information". My mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trane
I might be willing to chance it with a smaller book and fewer pics, but not with this particular project. I am probably being overly cautious but I prefer that to being wrong later.  |
I would be interested to know what kind of project this is with so many images in it. Art book? Maps? Encyclopedia? Tutorials?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle91
However, I don't think you need to worry about 'revisiting' the work if they change the standard in the future. The images are released under a specific version of the license... I think the latest for CC SA is version 4. As long as you comply with the requirements of the version under which it was released the author cannot take back - or change - those licenses.
|
I agree.
Side Note: Sort of reminds me a little bit like if you were preemptively worrying about changes in the MLA or APA citations. MLA8 came out... *GASP*... now I must redo all my older MLA citations!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trane
Funny you mention this b/c I read a blog post the other day from a woman who was using a CC BY SA image on her website, and she was contacted by the copyright owner telling her she was in violation of the license. It turned out he changed the CC license type at some point, long after she had started using it. She made the point it's hard to prove the image was posted with a particular license when the owner can change the license type anytime they want (I don't know if that's true, just repeating what she said).
|
I would be interested in a link to that.
Side Note: Here is a similar article that was posted on Techdirt in 2013,
Why Using Creative Commons Licensed Materials Is Not As Easy As It Looks:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Like many librarians I often turn to Creative Commons licensed photos on Flickr for use in my presentations and blog posts. Flickr makes it incredibly easy to search for photos with a Creative Commons license. Unfortunately it also makes it ridiculously easy for users to change the license on all their photos at any time with the click of a button. There is no way to prove the license at the time of use.
|
She then goes on to detail what happened, and how it was finally resolved, but here I want to focus on a couple of points raised by this episode. First, on the issue of changing licenses. Perhaps because CC licenses give creators a flexibility missing in copyright itself, there is a belief in some quarters that things can be changed after a work has been published under one of them. Although the licence attached to the work on Flickr, say, might indeed be altered "with the click of a button", the Creative Commons FAQ says the old one cannot be taken away:
Quote:
|
CC licenses are not revocable. Once a work is published under a CC license, licensees may continue using the work according to the license terms for the duration of copyright protection.
|
However, proving that something was originally available under a CC license when its owner claims that it is only available under restrictive conditions is more problematic. Interestingly, there are services that try to address this problem by keeping "dated, independently verified copies of license conditions associated with creative commons images," which suggests that this is an issue faced by quite a few people.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle91
That's crazy! Maybe take a screenshot of the image and license and store for your records?!?!?
|
Or see if Archive.org has a copy of the page at that date. Have no idea what sort of evidence would hold up in a court of law though.