Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?

Kind regards
Ziko

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/PDM_FAQ

--
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Ziko van Dijk, 13/10/2010 21:35:
> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
> use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?

We should use CC0 instead of PD-Self.
The PDM in itself doesn't mean much: what can that "other information"
clause contain?

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Mike Linksvayer-2
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>wrote:

> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
> use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?
>

Hopefully the main consequence is that the PDM encourages more, and more
accurate, annotating of public domain works elsewhere on the web, which
means a bigger universe for Wikimedia projects to pull from (and into
Commons).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags#Public_domain is currently
richer and works well as far as I can tell, so I wouldn't advocate for using
PDM directly on Commons. Maybe in the future, if PDM is wildly successful
(use, recognition by users and software, ...), as I hope it will be.

Mike

--
https://creativecommons.net/ml
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

geni
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On 13 October 2010 21:02, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ziko van Dijk, 13/10/2010 21:35:
>> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
>> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
>> use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?
>
> We should use CC0 instead of PD-Self.

We should not be encouraging attempts to rebrand the public domain.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Federico Leva (Nemo)
geni, 13/10/2010 23:14:
> On 13 October 2010 21:02, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> Ziko van Dijk, 13/10/2010 21:35:
>>> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
>>> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
>>> use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?
>> We should use CC0 instead of PD-Self.
>
> We should not be encouraging attempts to rebrand the public domain.

If this is a reply to me, CC0 doesn't look like this. PD-Self is quite
unclear.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Liam Wyatt
I for one am very keen to see us use this system, if for no other reason
than it leverages the existing visibility of the Creative Commons
machine-readable licensing structure. The CC-Public Domain Mark is not
actually doing anything new/different to the concept of the public domain
and doesn't pretend to force PD from one jurisdiction to another. In fact,
AFAICT, it is the first time Creative Commons have a "product" that isn't a
copyright license. Public Domain, by definition, is an absence of copyright
which is why they're calling it the PD Mark and not a license. As such, this
is not an attempt to rebrand the public domain but an attempt to make overt
expressions of it consistent, recognisable and machine-readable.

From what I hear (I'm here at the Europeana conference now where they are
officially launching the PDM tomorrow - as per the press release
http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/23755 ) CC were debating
whether to use a logo that was "C-with-a-line-through-it" or the letters
"PD". The concern about the former was that it could potentially look like
an "anti-copyright" logo which is not the message that CC wants to send out.
But, they ended up choosing it largely because Wikimedia has already made
the image recognisable through templates like "PD-old"
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-75 So, we were involved in
the creation of this Mark even though we didn't know it :-)

Not being a techie I'm not sure what would be required, if anything at all,
but how difficult would it be for us to implement the machine-readable
information provided by the PDM into commons so that our PD content is made
findable by this schema?

-Liam

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Liam Wyatt, 13/10/2010 23:43:

> From what I hear (I'm here at the Europeana conference now where they are
> officially launching the PDM tomorrow - as per the press release
> http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/23755 ) CC were debating
> whether to use a logo that was "C-with-a-line-through-it" or the letters
> "PD". The concern about the former was that it could potentially look like
> an "anti-copyright" logo which is not the message that CC wants to send out.
> But, they ended up choosing it largely because Wikimedia has already made
> the image recognisable through templates like "PD-old"
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-75 So, we were involved in
> the creation of this Mark even though we didn't know it :-)

Looks like this is where the icon was created:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PD-icon.png&diff=202666&oldid=189202 

Ā«"PD" may be insulting to french readersĀ» (cf.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PD#French )...

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

Mike Linksvayer-2
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I for one am very keen to see us use this system, if for no other reason
> than it leverages the existing visibility of the Creative Commons
> machine-readable licensing structure. The CC-Public Domain Mark is not
> actually doing anything new/different to the concept of the public domain
> and doesn't pretend to force PD from one jurisdiction to another. In fact,
> AFAICT, it is the first time Creative Commons have a "product" that isn't a
> copyright license.


One could argue about CC's old "Public Domain Dedication & Certification"
and current CC0, but the Public Domain Mark is indeed the first CC "product"
that is 100% separated from the use case for a copyright license.


> Public Domain, by definition, is an absence of copyright
> which is why they're calling it the PD Mark and not a license. As such,
> this
> is not an attempt to rebrand the public domain but an attempt to make overt
> expressions of it consistent, recognisable and machine-readable.
>

Right, it's just a label. We (I work for CC) attempted to avoid rebranding
the public domain by removing any "CC" from the buttons we suggest using
with the mark -- http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png and
http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/80x15.png -- and moving the
prominent CC branding one finds atop a CC license deed -- eg
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -- to a "powered by cc" in
the footer of http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

Incidentally, the name CC0 came about in part because we were sensitive to
the inappropriateness of branding the public domain -- CC0 is a specific
tool for putting works into the public domain -- as in no restrictions -- as
possible, but not the narrowly defined public domain of works that are not
or cannot fall under copyright restrictions. We've gotten various feedback
in both directions since -- that it was the right decision, or that we
shouldn't have made up yet another name -- so we've shifted a bit, and
though the tool is called CC0 still, we've also removed "CC" and added
"public domain" to buttons suggested for CC0k --
http://i.creativecommons.org/p/zero/1.0/88x31.png and
http://i.creativecommons.org/p/zero/1.0/80x15.png -- (subtle difference is
PDM button features a slash-C, CC0 a 0 -- most users will only care they
have lots of freedom associated with the public domain, but there's a signal
for anyone who knows enough to care) and given the CC0 deed the same
treatment as the PDM deed --
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Fortunately there is no problem with interoperability among well crafted
public domain tools (at least not legally, which is by far highest obstacle)
so for anyone who thinks we haven't gotten the branding, naming, or lack
thereof, quite right, it isn't a big loss to continue using another public
domain label or dedication, as the case warrants.

I'm planning a CC blog post which reviews some of these decisions and
tradeoffs, but for now easier to respond here. Feedback welcome.

From what I hear (I'm here at the Europeana conference now where they are

> officially launching the PDM tomorrow - as per the press release
> http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/23755 ) CC were debating
> whether to use a logo that was "C-with-a-line-through-it" or the letters
> "PD". The concern about the former was that it could potentially look like
> an "anti-copyright" logo which is not the message that CC wants to send
> out.
> But, they ended up choosing it largely because Wikimedia has already made
> the image recognisable through templates like "PD-old"
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-75 So, we were involved
> in
> the creation of this Mark even though we didn't know it :-)
>

That was the main thing, though we also encountered a criticism that also
cropped up in the development of public domain iconography at Wikimedia --
see comments on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PD-icon.png#filehistory :-/


> Not being a techie I'm not sure what would be required, if anything at all,
> but how difficult would it be for us to implement the machine-readable
> information provided by the PDM into commons so that our PD content is made
> findable by this schema?
>

 Probably 80/20 is including PDM link. Beyond that may require code (PHP,
not wikitext). But you should discuss with CC's CTO Nathan Yergler, who is
at your event.


--
https://creativecommons.net/ml
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l