tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post1322936893191334247..comments2024-03-14T11:37:12.849-04:00Comments on Russell McOrmond's personal blog: Why is a license required for a Canadiana project built from public domain material?Russell McOrmondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-59593603654048665752013-06-16T21:00:54.997-04:002013-06-16T21:00:54.997-04:00Heather said: "CC is designed as a means of w...Heather said: "CC is designed as a means of waiving rights under copyright. Even CC0 makes sense only as a way to speed works under copyright into public domain. We need some way of indicating that works really are public domain."<br /><br />CC0 has a public license fallback to handle the fact that public domain dedications or copyright waivers aren't possible in all legal jurisdictions. We live in a global world, and yet these most critical limiting aspects of copyright law are only local.<br /><br />Otherwise, I agree with you.<br /><br />This is, however, a matter of copyright reform and work at WIPO and other international policy bodies to create that clarity.<br /><br />This isn't something which the librarians and archivists behind Canadiana can solve alone, or solve with a project like this. We all need to do the best we can with the largely broken legal system we work within. These librarians shouldn't be expected to be activists like you or I.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-16021541825959612582013-06-16T20:51:33.029-04:002013-06-16T20:51:33.029-04:00Heather,
I understand the political sentiment of ...Heather,<br /><br />I understand the political sentiment of not mentioning licensing when it isn't necessary. I believe in a more practical approach that recognizes copyright law is always changing domestically and internationally, and you want to provide as much certainty as you can. The primary funding source of this work is libraries, which are always looking for certainty.<br /><br />We shouldn't be narrowly thinking about Canada. Existing Canadiana collections are in 12 countries, and the laws about what is and isn't in the public domain is different. The open access movement needs to be thinking beyond narrow political boarders.<br /><br />Providing a potentially redundant license does not, and can not, take something out of the public domain. In the Free Software movement we have the concept of dual-licensing where specific software is licensed under multiple licenses, and people use the one that best matches their needs. The license is only relevant where copyright exists, and should be ignored otherwise.<br /><br />It is important to recognize we are only talking about copyright licensing of works where Canadiana or their partners in the project would be the copyright holder. This isn't a license on any of the underlying material, only the "photograph" (if it is or becomes necessary under <b>copyright law</b>) and the metadata. Copyright law itself doesn't allow Canadian to offer a "license" on the underlying works -- only the copyright holder and their designates can do that, which is in fact what copyright is.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-67269568486369371672013-06-16T20:33:35.469-04:002013-06-16T20:33:35.469-04:00Heather,
The point of my mentioning "only my...Heather,<br /><br />The point of my mentioning "only my opinion" is to specify that I am speaking as a fellow open access advocate, rather than as someone who can claim to "represent" Canadiana in any way.<br /><br />I agree with you that there is a need for discussion within the relatively new open access movement (compared to the Free Software movement) on licensing. I think this includes common misunderstandings of licensing clauses.<br /><br />The "NC" forms of CC licenses simply mean that commercial uses need an additional license, often a royalty-bearing one. It does not in any way restrict the enclosure you are speaking of. I believe what you were thinking of is the "SA", or share-alike clauses which mirror the "Copyleft" terms of Free Software licensing. These restrict derivatives to being under the same (or compatible) license, and thus disallows closure.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-17296506942044192402013-06-16T15:38:04.659-04:002013-06-16T15:38:04.659-04:00Another thought is that placing a license on a wor...Another thought is that placing a license on a work might help the user in the case of a dispute, but this could be at the expense of Canadiana if someone thought that Canadiana did not have a right to use the license. A good faith we believe this is public domain statement might be best and a clear policy to address disputes (eg takedown until resolved, leave up but with note that public domain status is not clear until resolved).<br /><br />Yet another thought: CC is designed as a means of waiving rights under copyright. Even CC0 makes sense only as a way to speed works under copyright into public domain. We need some way of indicating that works really are public domain.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-71890745232943677802013-06-16T15:12:43.991-04:002013-06-16T15:12:43.991-04:00To return to the main topic, I should add that it ...To return to the main topic, I should add that it may be best not to use licenses for material that is in the public domain, A simple statement that this is public domain should suffice, Any license risks some loss of the public domain. It should not be necessary to acknowledge the scanning body, for example - nice, but not required and requiring attribution is likely to be a temptation if a licensing approach is used.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-36117060849189118292013-06-16T15:06:52.570-04:002013-06-16T15:06:52.570-04:00Thanks for noting that this is your perspective / ...Thanks for noting that this is your perspective / as an open access activist I consider granting blanket commercial rights to be problematic for open access as they permit downstream enclosure for commercial purposes. All CC license elements have both positive and negative consequences for open access and I argue that the present is a time for experimentation, not a rigid technical definition of OA. For more on this subject see my Creative Commons and Open Access Critique series http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html?m=1Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.com