Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

PDM FAQ

2012-05-21T05:53:46Z

Arikos:

[[Category:FAQ]]
[[Category:PDM]]
[[Category:Public domain]]

These Public Domain Mark FAQs contain information that you should familiarize yourself with before applying the Public Domain Mark (“PDM”) to a work, or before using a work that is marked with the PDM. The information provided below is not exhaustive – it may not cover important issues that could affect you.
__TOC__
These FAQs are intended to supplement, not replace, our existing [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ FAQ][http://www.ksaday.com s] and our [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0 FAQ][http://www.walletputih.com s]. You are encouraged to review those FAQs before using the PDM or any of our other legal tools or licenses. You should also read the PDM deed carefully, as well as the information linked to from the deed. The deed and supplemental information contain important information about the work that has been marked, and should be fully understood before you apply it to a work or use a PDM-marked work.

Please note: '''Creative Commons does not provide legal advice.''' The information provided below is not a substitute for legal advice and is not complete. Please consult your own legal advisor if you have any questions or concerns about the information provided below, about the Public Domain Mark or about Creative Commons licenses and tools generally.

=== Questions about the Public Domain Mark generally ===

==== What is the Public Domain Mark? ====

The Public Domain Mark (“PDM”) is a tool that allows anyone to mark and tag a work that is free of known copyright restrictions worldwide, all in a way that clearly communicates that status to the public and allows it to be easily discoverable. The PDM is not a legal instrument like CC0 or our licenses; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. It should only be used to label a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world, typically very old works. It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work. Just like CC0 and our licenses, PDM has a metadata-supported deed and is machine readable, allowing works properly tagged to be readily discovered over the Internet.

==== How does it work? ====

Anyone can use the PDM to mark a work that is free of known copyright restrictions. Information about the work, its author(s), and the person marking the work is supplied through our [http://creativecommons.org/choose/mark PDM Choos][http://www.walletputih.com/2012/05/4shared-file-sharing-video-mp3-music.html er] and embedded in the HTML generated for the work. When supplied, this information may help users of the work evaluate the copyright status of the work for themselves, and learn more about the work. Again, please keep in mind that the PDM does not affect the legal status of the work or the legal rights of the author, the person identifying it or others. The PDM serves a marking and labeling function only.

====What is the difference between the PDM and CC0?====

PDM and CC0 differ in important respects and have distinct purposes. CC0 is intended for use only by authors or holders of copyright and related or neighboring rights (including sui generis database rights), in connection with '''works that are still subject to those rights''' in one or more jurisdictions. PDM, on the other hand, can be used by anyone, and is intended for use with''' works that are already free of known copyright restrictions throughout the world'''.

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Review a [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_PDM_comparison_chart chart comparing] [http://www.walletputih.com/2012/05/amoled-active-matrix-organic-light.html the] [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_PDM_comparison_chart attributes of PDM and CC0], and learn more about [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0].

====Can I use the PDM with data, such as metadata? What about databases?====

Yes, PDM can be applied to any work that is free of known copyright restrictions. This means, for example, that you can use PDM to mark [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metadata metadata], which is data about data, if the metadata is not copyrightable or otherwise free of copyright. For example, whether or not a photograph is still protected by copyright, metadata that describes the photograph may be unprotected by copyright. In that instance, PDM could be applied to the metadata itself.

PDM can also be applied to databases that are not protected by copyright, including databases containing metadata. The treatment of databases under copyright law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however, sometimes dramatically. Additionally, databases are also granted sui generis protection in some jurisdictions, which may limit the ability to extract and/or reuse information from the database even if the information itself in the public domain. If you are uncertain whether a database is protected by copyright around the world, then you should not mark the database itself with the PDM, but could use PDM to mark unprotected content in the database.

If you are the creator or maker of a database and want to ensure that anyone can freely extract and reuse content (subject, of course, to other rights that may apply to the contents of the database such as a photograph still under copyright), then you may wish to consider using CC0 to waive all of your copyright and sui generis database rights in the database itself. In all cases, clearly marking and labeling the works to which PDM and CC0 apply is important.

==== What about CC’s Public Domain Dedication and Certification? Can that tool still be used? ====

With the launch of the PDM, Creative Commons is officially deprecating its Public Domain Dedication and Certification (“PDDC”). CC no longer recommends the PDDC for use in any situation. The PDDC had served the dual purposes of allowing a copyright holder to dedicate a work to the public domain, and to mark and certify a work as being in the public domain. We discovered that having a single tool performing both functions was confusing, among other things. In early 2008, we published [http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 CC0] to take on the dedication function the PDDC had been performing. We [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13304 announced] at that time that we would be working to improve the way people mark or “tag” a work with information relevant to a work’s public domain status. The PDM is that improved tool. The PDM now assumes the marking and tagging function previously served by PDDC, thereby replacing the PDDC as the recommended tool of choice for doing so.

For those who have used the PDDC to date, you can remain confident that CC will continue to support and serve the PDDC deed.

If you need to certify your public domain dedication, you may visit a service provider such as [http://www.registeredcommons.org RegisteredCommons].

=== Questions for those thinking about applying the PDM to a work ===

==== Who can apply the Public Domain Mark to a work? ====

Anyone who believes a work is free of known copyright restrictions may use the PDM. Keep in mind, however, that the PDM is recommended only for works that are free of known copyright restrictions around the world. You should not apply the PDM to works that you know are only in the public domain in a limited number of jurisdictions. We anticipate that most of the time, the PDM in its current form will only be applied to very old works.

==== If I apply the PDM to a work, am I warranting or promising that the work is free of copyright around the world? ====

No, not unless the law otherwise provides or you want to provide a separate warranty to that effect. Like all CC legal tools, the PDM deed includes express disclaimers of warranties and liabilities, to the extent those are enforceable under applicable laws. Additionally, the PDM deed puts users on notice that the work may not be free of copyright restrictions in all jurisdictions. That notice is intended to caution would-be users of the work that it can be difficult to account for all laws and all possible underlying factual circumstances that impact the copyright status of a particular work in every jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the disclaimers and notice, if you know that a work you would like to mark is still in copyright in one or more jurisdictions, please do not apply the PDM. We are working on other means for marking works that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions while still restricted by copyright in others, and hope to publish that soon.

==== How do I apply the PDM to a work? ====

Our [http://creativecommons.org/choose/mark PDM Chooser] will lead you through process. When completed, you will be provided with HTML code that you can copy and paste into your website. Please be aware that it is up to you, the person identifying the work, to publish the work marked with the PDM to your website or elsewhere. Creative Commons does not publish any works and cannot accept responsibility for doing so.

==== What are the benefits of including the information requested by the PDM Chooser? ====

The information you provide when using the PDM Chooser will be included in the rendered PDM deed that is linked to the work, as well as included in the machine-readable code. Potential users of the work can then use that information to find out more about the work and its status. Although the information fields are optional, we encourage you to provide all of the information you can for the benefit of users.

==== Does the PDM require those using a work I have marked to give me credit? Or the author? ====

No, there is no credit or attribution requirement, either for the person marking the work or the original author of the work. However, this does not mean that you cannot ask others to give you credit for your effort digitizing and/or marking the work in accordance with community or professional norms and standards.

PDM makes it very easy for users to cite the work itself. If information about the author and work is supplied during the PDM Chooser stage, an HTML citation box will appear on the deed. Users of the work can easily copy the code contained in the box and paste it into the webpage where the work is being used, providing citation information. We encourage everyone identifying works using the PDM Chooser to supply that information; and whenever made available, we encourage users of PDM-marked works to use the ready-to-use citation information.

=== Questions for those thinking about using a PDM-marked work ===

==== Can anyone use a work that is marked using the PDM? ====

Yes, the PDM doesn’t restrict who may use a marked work. Generally, any work free of copyright restrictions can be used for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking anyone’s permission first. Note, however, that the PDM deed identifies some important caveats under '''Other Information''' that all would-be users of the work should understand. Among others, it’s possible that a work marked using PDM is not free of all copyright restrictions in all jurisdictions around the world, or that other laws outside of copyright restrict how the work may be used. Read more about these possibilities and others, below.

If you are in doubt about whether or how you can use a PDM-marked work, you should consult with your legal advisor.

==== Am I really free to use a work marked with the PDM anyway I want, anywhere in the world? ====

Like all works that are labeled “free of known copyright restrictions,” “in the public domain” or similar – including works published on the Flickr Commons, museum or library websites or elsewhere – the answer is simple: “It depends.” In this one respect, PDM is no different than any other public domain marking system. That said, one of the most important advantages PDM has over other systems is that the deed alerts would-be users of a work to '''some''' of the important, potential limitations on their ability to use the work.

These potential limitations and caveats are highlighted on the PDM deed under '''Other Information'''. Users are strongly encouraged to review and understand those in advance of using a PDM-marked work (or any other work characterized as part of the public domain, for that matter).

==== Why might a free of copyright restrictions in one jurisdiction not be free of copyright restrictions everywhere? ====

Copyright laws around the world vary; there is no harmonized or standardized copyright law that all jurisdictions follow for purposes of determining when a work is no longer restricted by copyright. Additionally, circumstances causing a work to become part of the public domain under the laws of one jurisdiction may not cause a similar result under others’ laws. Thus, the identical work may be restricted by copyright in some jurisdictions while free of copyright in others.

A work may have this limited or “hybrid” public domain status for a variety of reasons. Some jurisdictions have unusually long copyright terms, which may mean that a work free from copyright restrictions most everywhere else in the world may still be protected by the copyright laws of that particular country. Sometimes a work is no longer restricted by copyright in a jurisdiction because the author or owner failed to comply with formalities such as renewal of registration or publication with notice, where those formalities apply. It could also be the case that certain categories of works are not protected by copyright by operation of law in a particular jurisdiction, but may be afforded protection under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions. This is the case, for example, with [http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml U.S. government works].

CC does not recommend the current version of PDM for works with are in public domain in some jurisdictions but known to be restricted by copyright in others. Even when this recommendation is followed, however, you should be aware that the possibility still exists. We choose to alert would-be users to that possibility up front, however remote it may be.

==== What practices do those who apply PDM to works use to arrive at a determination that a work is free of known copyright? ====

That will depend. CC has not established standards, expectations or even suggested practices for those choosing to apply the mark. Nor are we qualified to do so. Every institution and individual applying the mark must exercise their own judgment for marking works they wish to indicate are free of known copyright. Our hope is that those practices will be published widely and made transparent so that would-be users of PDM-marked works are able to understand the review that was undertaken. We also encourage potential users of PDM-marked works to inquire about those practices with the identifying institution or individual if they want to know more.

Unless otherwise stated to the contrary, however, the person applying the PDM to a work is not guaranteeing anything about it, including what processes or diligence they engaged in before applying the PDM to a work. Creative Commons does not verify the copyright status of works to which the Public Domain Mark has been applied.

==== Are there other laws I should be aware of that might restrict my ability to use a PDM-marked work? ====

Probably. PDM is focused exclusively on copyright law and related and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ#What_are_neighboring_rights.3F neighboring rights]. It does not address the applicability (or inapplicability) of other laws, except to alert users that use of the work may be otherwise regulated or limited. For example, if the work contains an image or likeness of a person or their voice, privacy or [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Faq#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F publicity rights] may be implicated in some jurisdictions. Similarly, personal data protections laws could come into play depending on the nature of the work, its contents and the particular jurisdiction.

The freedom that comes with using a work in the public domain doesn’t extend to uses that may violate other applicable laws. Just as with works licensed under a CC license, you should be cognizant of other laws that may apply to your particular uses of a work.

==== Am I required to attribute the author of the work, or the person who applied the PDM to the work? ====

No, there is no legal requirement that you credit the author of the original work or the person who identified the work, only a request that you do so voluntarily if requested and the means are provided for doing so.

For purposes of author/work citation, the PDM deed provides HTML code that can be copy and pasted into a webpage to easily cite the author and the work if the person who marked the worked provided that information. We encourage you to take advantage of this copy/paste citation feature whenever possible.

==== How can I be sure that I can use the work as I would like? ====

The Public Domain Mark contains a disclaimer of warranties just like our licenses and CC0, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the work is free of all copyright restrictions in every jurisdiction around the world just because the mark is applied. You should also be aware of restrictions or limitations beyond copyright that may apply, such privacy, publicity, personal data laws and the like.

If you are in doubt, then we strongly recommend you not use the work until you have taken all the steps and precautions you feel you need to before doing so, which may include contacting the person who applied the PDM to the work and consulting legal counsel.
][

Cultivating the Public Domain

2012-05-21T05:46:30Z

Arikos:

[[Category:Legal]]

''Originally published at http://web.archive.org/web/20021217080646/ http://creativecommons.org/learn/legal/cultivating''

Before 1978, U.S. law made non-copyright status the default for published creative works. “[C]opyright protection was lost permanently if the [copyright] notice was omitted from the first authorized published edition of a work or if it appeared in the wrong form or position. . . . [A] basic failure to comply with the notice provisions forfeited copyright protection and put the work into the public domain in this country.”[1] If the author did not take the trouble to put a copyright notice on her work, it passed into the public domain once published. Public domain status was the default.

After January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976), omission of a copyright notice could later be corrected, and thus did not result in outright forfeiture of copyright.[2] As of March 1, 1989 (the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988), notice of copyright is now entirely optional. [3] Today, copyright status, rather than public domain status, is the default for all “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” [4] As the Copyright Office puts it, “copyright is an incident of creative authorship not dependent on statutory formalities.”[5]

This shift in the copyright default rule has practical impacts that are especially striking in an age of inexpensive self-publishing and information retrieval. First, the author who does not want to exercise the restrictions that copyright law makes available to her now bears the burden of signifying the public domain status of her work. Caselaw suggests that a copyright holder must perform some “overt act” demonstrating her intent to surrender her rights.[6] The amateur Internet author who has no intention of limiting the ways in which other people may use her work unintentionally imposes copyright limitations unless she knows to comply with the overt act requirement. Even if she has no intention of bringing a copyright infringement action, would-be re-users cannot safely assume that she won’t-even if the work bears no copyright notice. Of course, the elimination of the notice requirement means that the author who does want his work copyrighted is relieved of the burden of affixing a proper copyright notice to his work. The point is that the burden has shifted to the author who prefers public domain status, and that many of the authors who can now self-publish their work on the Internet likely fall into the newly-burdened category. [7]

The second practical impact of the shift in the copyright default rule has yet to be realized. When the copyright expires on a work that is created today, it may be extremely difficult to establish that the work has passed into the public domain. In the absence of a copyright notice or registration requirement, there will not necessarily be a publicly-available record of the date of creation of the work (or even of the identity of its author), and therefore no practical way to determine whether copyright has expired. [8] Public domain works that might otherwise be made widely available via the Internet (or whatever method of information retrieval is relevant by the time modern copyrights expire) may never be identified. [9]

One goal of the Creative Commons project is to alert creators who do not intend to copyright their work to the “overt act” requirement and to help them comply with it. Then we hope to help creators label works in a way that makes it clear to potential re-users that the work is in the public domain. And we intend to develop mechanisms for attaching “public domain” labels to digital works in a way that computer applications can recognize and process-enabling easy location and retrieval of digital works in the public domain.

Some copyright holders may be unwilling to free their work to the public domain before their copyright expires, but happy to relinquish some of the rights that copyright affords them. Copyright holders with the resources to negotiate licenses can voluntarily cede some of their rights. And organizations like the Free Software Foundation offer ready-made licenses that authors may use to give the public permission to copy and distribute copyrighted works (primarily software) without seeking the authors’ permission, so long as certain conditions are observed. [10]

Inspired in part by the work of the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons plans to build a menu of customizable licenses appropriate for use by other types of creators who want to retain some rights while sharing their work with the public on terms more generous than copyright. We hope to draw attention to and complement existing efforts like the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Open Audio License; [11] and we hope to improve on such efforts by making it easier for potential re-users to identify works that they may safely use without worrying about the intricacies of fair use. Just as a work could be labeled “public domain” in a way that humans and machines could recognize, works could be labeled according to license terms like “This work may be used for any noncommercial purpose,” or “Derivative works may be created based on this work so long as the derivative works are licensed under these terms.” We envision a system of licensing and labeling that would make it possible, for example, for an artist compiling a digital collage easily to use a search engine to locate all online images that are freely available for copying and modification.

----
[1] U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: [http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ22.html How to Investigate the Copyright Status of] [http://www.ksaday.com a] [http://www.planetsofts.com Work], see also, e.g., Canfield v. Ponchatoula Times, 759 F.2d 493, 497 (5th Cir. 1985); Burke v. Nat. Broad. Co., Inc., 598 F.2d 688, 691 (1st Cir. 1979).

[2] Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-553, §§405-406, 90 Stat. 2541; see also U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work.

[3] Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-568, §7, 102 Stat. 2853 (amending 17 U.S.C. §§401-06); U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work. Although notice is no longer a prerequisite for copyright, it does offer an advantage to the copyright holder in the event of litigation. Specifically, if proper notice appeared on an infringed work, the infringer may not use the defense of innocent infringement to mitigate damages. 17 U.S.C. §401(d).

[4] 17 U.S.C. §102.

[5] U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work. The Copyright Act does impose the requirement that two copies of every work published in the United States be deposited with the Library of Congress.17 U.S.C. §407. But the penalty for failure to deposit is a fine, not loss of copyright protection. Id. §407(a), (d).

[6] See 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §13.06 (2001) (citing caselaw); see also, e.g., National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2nd Cir. 1951).

[7] See generally Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright 103-107 (2001) (suggesting that many Internet publishers are not motivated by the possibility of exploiting intellectual property rights).

[8] See generally U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work (cautioning that “[t]he complete absence of any information about a work in the [Copyright] Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected”).

[9] The Copyright Office currently maintains no list of public domain works. See U.S. Copyright Office, Questions Frequently Asked in the [http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q11 Copyright Office Public Information Sec][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/05/situs-download-lagu-akan-dihapus.html tion], at #11.

[10] See [http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html GNU General Public Licen][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/05/games-gratis.html se].

[11] See [http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.html EFF Open Audio License], see also, e.g., [http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt Design Science License], [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License], [http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/ploslicense.htm Public Library of Science Open Access License], [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License], [http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/showitem.php?item=209 Open Music License].

CC0

2012-05-21T05:43:52Z

Arikos:

'''CC0''' is the "no rights reserved" in Creative Commons licensing - it effectively means releasing your work as [[public domain]].

CC0 is a single purpose tool, designed to take on the dedication function of the former [[Public Domain Dedication and Certification]][http://www.ksaday.com/2012/01/4shared-com.html .]

How effectively this works may depend on your legal regime, but the tool is intended to effectively release rights even in legal contexts where this is difficult.

Note that CC0 is a three-tier instrument. We recognize that a waiver may not be effective in most jurisdictions, and CC0's enforceability is not solely dependent on the waiver. The fall back public license is similar to our Attribution-only license with the attribution requirement waived. The BY license is enforceable around the world -- this public license tier is in some ways the core of CC0. The third and final tier is a non assertion by the copyright holder that even if the waiver and license do not operate as intended, the copyright holder will not take any actions that prevents a user of the work from exercising rights consistent with the intention of the copyright holder.

For detailed information see [[CC0 FAQ]].

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:CC0, Ksh:CC0, Fr:CC0, De:CC0
}}

[[Category:License]]
[[Category:CC0]]

CC0

2012-05-21T05:42:59Z

Arikos:

'''CC0''' is the "no rights reserved" in Creative Commons licensing - it effectively means releasing your work as [[public domain]].

CC0 is a single purpose tool, designed to take on the dedication function of the former [[Public Domain Dedication and Certification]][www.ksaday.com/2012/01/4shared-com.html .]

How effectively this works may depend on your legal regime, but the tool is intended to effectively release rights even in legal contexts where this is difficult.

Note that CC0 is a three-tier instrument. We recognize that a waiver may not be effective in most jurisdictions, and CC0's enforceability is not solely dependent on the waiver. The fall back public license is similar to our Attribution-only license with the attribution requirement waived. The BY license is enforceable around the world -- this public license tier is in some ways the core of CC0. The third and final tier is a non assertion by the copyright holder that even if the waiver and license do not operate as intended, the copyright holder will not take any actions that prevents a user of the work from exercising rights consistent with the intention of the copyright holder.

For detailed information see [[CC0 FAQ]].

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:CC0, Ksh:CC0, Fr:CC0, De:CC0
}}

[[Category:License]]
[[Category:CC0]]

Developers

2012-05-04T00:55:19Z

Arikos:

<div style="font-size:125%; line-height:1.75em; margin-bottom:1.75em;"><strong>Welcome to the CC Developer Community!</strong> The CC Developer Community is the place to find all about the various software and technical projects that happen within Creative Commons, and the larger CC community. All of the projects developed at Creative Commons are open source [http://www.planetsofts.com software], and just like most open source projects, outside involvement is key to its success. Be sure to [[Special:Userlogin|create a wiki accou]][http://shoppingboss.blogspot.com/ nt] or [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin login with Open][http://car-insurance-auto1.blogspot.com/ ID] so you can add to this wiki and help it grow.
<br />
There are many ways of interacting with the CC Developer Community, pick your point of entry below:
</div>

<div style="padding:1.25em 1em; margin-left:-1em; margin-right:-1em; -moz-border-radius:5px; -webkit-border-radius:5px; background-color: #eaeaea; overflow: auto;">
{{PageColumn|
=== Integrate CC license data into applications ===
[[Integrate|Integrating CC license data]] into desktop or web-based applications provides users huge benefits: they get to decide how their work is licensed from the start.
* I want to do this for '''[[Desktop Integration|desktop applicatio]][http://playgames200.blogspot.com/ ns]'''
* I want to do this for '''[[Web Integration|web applications]]'''

=== Translate ===
There are many opportunities to help the Creative Commons community with translations. Check out the [[Translate]] page for an overview.

=== Join the Discussion ===
The Developer Community is more than the sum of software written, it is also the conversations that the community has; what is important, what to do next, how to improve the old.

* '''[[Mailing Lists|Mailing Lis]][http://computerhilfe200.blogspot.com/ ts]'''
** [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel cc-dev][http://browsergames10.blogspot.com/ el] [http://www.ksaday.com/ berita terbaru] is the primary developer mailing list.
* '''[[IRC]]'''
** #cc on the Freenode IRC network.
* '''[http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/ Issue Tracking] / [http://www.ksaday.com/ ksaday][http://fashiongarten.blogspot.com/ ing]'''
** See what we're working on.
* '''[http://labs.creativecommons.org Blog]'''
** CC Labs, our technology blog.
}}
{{PageColumn|
=== Participate in Developer Challenges ===
[[Developer Challenges|Creative Commons Developer Challenge]][http://spielegames1.blogspot.com/ s] are a great way of joining the community and producing software that others have already expressed interest in using!

==== Developer Challenges currently open (first 15): ====
{{#ask:
[[Category:Challenge]] [[Has Challenge Type::Developer]] [[Is Complete::false]]
| ?Related To
| limit=15
}}

}}</div>
<br clear="all"/>

{{Translations
| articles = Pt:Programadores, Ru:Разработчикам, Vi:Phát Triển Viên
}}

[[Category:Developer]]

__NOTOC__

Flickr Autocuration

2012-04-13T15:31:39Z

Arikos:

[[Category:LiveContent]]
[[Category:Developer]]
[[Category:Documentation]]

== Overview ==

LiveContent 2.0 incorporates the "autocuration" process for the photo-sharing website Flickr.com. Autocuration automatically pulls down CC-licensed photos from Flickr for inclusion in the LiveContent daily build. Developers use [http://www.flickr.com/services/api/ Flickr's API] to set up the content autocuration.

You can look at our code for this [http://cctools.svn.sf.net/viewvc/cctools/autocurate/trunk/autocurate_flickr.py in Subversion].

Autocuration happens when a CD image is made by Creative Commons; when you burn a LiveContent disc, it will contain the autocurated photos from the day the disc was created, not the day you downloaded it. This way, the LiveContent disc can start up and show you the photos automatically selected without having to have Internet access.

== Process ==

When LiveContent 2.0 is built, the build script (kickstart file) talks to the autocuration package. The autocuration program:

* Asks Flickr.com's API for the top 500 "Interesting" photos
* Removes the non-CC licensed photos
* Aks [http://www.ksaday.com 4shared] information website
* Asks the API to provide author (username + real name) information of the photos
* Generates URLs that can point someone back to the photo on flickr.com
* Asks the API to help it find the largest available size for the photo
* Downloads all the photos, and saves the metadata (like URL, author name, photo name) into a separate file.

== Concerns ==

* Attribution string: It would be nice if Flickr let users suggest a particular attribution string for downstream CC license users to use.
* API keys: Right now, Flickr requires an API key to use the autocuration program. This is not a difficult set of operations for Flickr to perform, so it would be nice if anyone could use this without having to register first with Flickr.
* Flickr sometimes returns invalid XML, usually due to text encoding issues. I had to write flickrmonkey.py (available [http://cctools.svn.sf.net/viewvc/cctools/autocurate/trunk/flickrmonkey.py in Subversion]) to work around it, and my workaround isn't perfect. In the most recent version of flickrmonkey, I carefully only modify the XML if it does not parse; that avoids me creating problems where they did not exist.

== Questions? ==

If you have any questions, please email me - asheesh at creativecommons.org.

Cultivating the Public Domain

2012-04-05T00:52:00Z

Arikos:

[[Category:Legal]]

''Originally published at http://web.archive.org/web/20021217080646/http://creativecommons.org/learn/legal/cultivating''

Before 1978, U.S. law made non-copyright status the default for published creative works. “[C]opyright protection was lost permanently if the [copyright] notice was omitted from the first authorized published edition of a work or if it appeared in the wrong form or position. . . . [A] basic failure to comply with the notice provisions forfeited copyright protection and put the work into the public domain in this country.”[1] If the author did not take the trouble to put a copyright notice on her work, it passed into the public domain once published. Public domain status was the default.

After January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976), omission of a copyright notice could later be corrected, and thus did not result in outright forfeiture of copyright.[2] As of March 1, 1989 (the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988), notice of copyright is now entirely optional. [3] Today, copyright status, rather than public domain status, is the default for all “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” [4] As the Copyright Office puts it, “copyright is an incident of creative authorship not dependent on statutory formalities.”[5]

This shift in the copyright default rule has practical impacts that are especially striking in an age of inexpensive self-publishing and information retrieval. First, the author who does not want to exercise the restrictions that copyright law makes available to her now bears the burden of signifying the public domain status of her work. Caselaw suggests that a copyright holder must perform some “overt act” demonstrating her intent to surrender her rights.[6] The amateur Internet author who has no intention of limiting the ways in which other people may use her work unintentionally imposes copyright limitations unless she knows to comply with the overt act requirement. Even if she has no intention of bringing a copyright infringement action, would-be re-users cannot safely assume that she won’t-even if the work bears no copyright notice. Of course, the elimination of the notice requirement means that the author who does want his work copyrighted is relieved of the burden of affixing a proper copyright notice to his work. The point is that the burden has shifted to the author who prefers public domain status, and that many of the authors who can now self-publish their work on the Internet likely fall into the newly-burdened category. [7]

The second practical impact of the shift in the copyright default rule has yet to be realized. When the copyright expires on a work that is created today, it may be extremely difficult to establish that the work has passed into the public domain. In the absence of a copyright notice or registration requirement, there will not necessarily be a publicly-available record of the date of creation of the work (or even of the identity of its author), and therefore no practical way to determine whether copyright has expired. [8] Public domain works that might otherwise be made widely available via the Internet (or whatever method of information retrieval is relevant by the time modern copyrights expire) may never be identified. [9]

One goal of the Creative Commons project is to alert creators who do not intend to copyright their work to the “overt act” requirement and to help them comply with it. Then we hope to help creators label works in a way that makes it clear to potential re-users that the work is in the public domain. And we intend to develop mechanisms for attaching “public domain” labels to digital works in a way that computer applications can recognize and process-enabling easy location and retrieval of digital works in the public domain.

Some copyright holders may be unwilling to free their work to the public domain before their copyright expires, but happy to relinquish some of the rights that copyright affords them. Copyright holders with the resources to negotiate licenses can voluntarily cede some of their rights. And organizations like the Free Software Foundation offer ready-made licenses that authors may use to give the public permission to copy and distribute copyrighted works (primarily software) without seeking the authors’ permission, so long as certain conditions are observed. [10]

Inspired in part by the work of the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons plans to build a menu of customizable licenses appropriate for use by other types of creators who want to retain some rights while sharing their work with the public on terms more generous than copyright. We hope to draw attention to and complement existing efforts like the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Open Audio License; [11] and we hope to improve on such efforts by making it easier for potential re-users to identify works that they may safely use without worrying about the intricacies of fair use. Just as a work could be labeled “public domain” in a way that humans and machines could recognize, works could be labeled according to license terms like “This work may be used for any noncommercial purpose,” or “Derivative works may be created based on this work so long as the derivative works are licensed under these terms.” We envision a system of licensing and labeling that would make it possible, for example, for an artist compiling a digital collage easily to use a search engine to locate all online images that are freely available for copying and modification.

----
[1] U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: [http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ22.html How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work] [http://goo.gl/sJc28 game online], see also, e.g., Canfield v. Ponchatoula Times, 759 F.2d 493, 497 (5th Cir. 1985); Burke v. Nat. Broad. Co., Inc., 598 F.2d 688, 691 (1st Cir. 1979).

[2] Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-553, §§405-406, 90 Stat. 2541; see also U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work.

[3] Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-568, §7, 102 Stat. 2853 (amending 17 U.S.C. §§401-06); U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work. Although notice is no longer a prerequisite for copyright, it does offer an advantage to the copyright holder in the event of litigation. Specifically, if proper notice appeared on an infringed work, the infringer may not use the defense of innocent infringement to mitigate damages. 17 U.S.C. §401(d).

[4] 17 U.S.C. §102.

[5] U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work. The Copyright Act does impose the requirement that two copies of every work published in the United States be deposited with the Library of Congress.17 U.S.C. §407. But the penalty for failure to deposit is a fine, not loss of copyright protection. Id. §407(a), (d).

[6] See 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §13.06 (2001) (citing caselaw); see also, e.g., National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2nd Cir. 1951).

[7] See generally Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright 103-107 (2001) (suggesting that many Internet publishers are not motivated by the possibility of exploiting intellectual property rights).

[8] See generally U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work (cautioning that “[t]he complete absence of any information about a work in the [Copyright] Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected”).

[9] The Copyright Office currently maintains no list of public domain works. See U.S. Copyright Office, Questions Frequently Asked in the [http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q11 Copyright Office Public Information Section], at #11.

[10] See [http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html GNU General Public License] and [http://goo.gl/sJc28 Ksaday].

[11] See [http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.html EFF Open Audio License], see also, e.g., [http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt Design Science License], [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License], [http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/ploslicense.htm Public Library of Science Open Access License], [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License], [http://goo.gl/sJc28 video], [http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/showitem.php?item=209 Open Music License].