Creative Commons Adds A 'No Copyright At All' Option
from the go-go-public-domain dept
Just two months ago, we were pointing out how difficult it was to opt-out of copyright and put content into the public domain. We noted that it wasn't solved by Creative Commons -- who had a series of licenses that all relied on copyright, and none that removed all restrictions. Looks like the CC folks were listening (not to me, necessarily, but to others who raised similar issues). They have now released a new offering to help content creators declare their work to be in the public domain. They're calling it CC0. While it looks just like other CC licenses, it's not actually a "license," but a waiver/declaration that the content is in the public domain. This is a fantastic move, and we'll certainly be checking it out in more detail to see if it makes sense for us and the content posted here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, public domain
Companies: creative commons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
From the (non) license..
Please. Let's just eliminate copyright altogether so this sort of tortured legal reasoning is not required.
At a bare minimum, returning copyright to explicit, opt-in, expensive as hell to register for and short terms (5 years) for would solve a multitude of problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the (non) license..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the (non) license..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the (non) license..
Copyright and Patent application fees collected today in no way offset the expense to society for the use of the court systems.
And why do you think --your-- "Work" is worthy of monopoly protection of the federal government? Have you crated a work that took 20,000 hours off your lifetime to create?
Me thinks not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the (non) license..
I mean, if it costs nothing to acquire a copyright on something now, and damages for 20-however-many-songs it was are $225,000 USD... how much do you think copyright holders will want if it cost them $10,000 to get a copyright for five years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the (non) license..
So unless you mean "expensive as hell" and there is no money in hell, your comments are misplaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beware those lurking in the shadows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beware those lurking in the shadows
Keep waiting. I don't think any lawyer would say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
As for the above comment, it is possible that the copyright in a work may be subordinate to the copyright in a work held by a third party. Hence the cautionary language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll be using the Zero license from now on, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTFPL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be telling...
Sort of like taking a walk in the woods and suddenly seeing "No Trespassing" signs everywhere. Even on the woods you own.
It's been a stealthy theft, I'll give them that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This should be telling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You may CC0 a video. But if the video contains elements that are copyrighted in any way, that CC0 would not be valid.
In reality, CC0 could actually lead to liablity, as it could be taken as a declaration that could shift liablity in case of copyright action against the end user(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait a minute - this comment actually appears to have some merit. A bit FUDdy, but not entirely trollish. Way to go Weird!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
its up to the 'creator' to research the matreials that they used and make sure that they are not interfeiring
IMHO I hate the term licenses, it makes it seem as if you have no control over anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A no copyright option is nice, but it cannot revoke anyone else's claim to code (or content).
Same problem with other CC licenses. That's why a much larger public domain benefits everybody.
(When did Harold start taking his meds? I like him like this.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Copyleft
But I'm more of a GPL guy than a BSD guy (or... CC BY-SA than CC BY).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we need this?
"This post is Public Domain."
Which now makes this post Public Domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do we need this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do we need this?
It's the problem of any assault on any of the triad of copyright, patent, and trademark: Stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum, there is almost always some little hitch that connections something to something else that you don't really have the right to put in the public domain. It is why much of the railing against the system is amusing, but much more difficult to achieve than Mike and his crew would you like to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do we need this?
btw, I have to say I really like the new you Weird Harold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got a new game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CC0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]