I don't think you have anything to worry about, Ragnar. The point you were bringing up is correct and it will help remind us all to keep it about compassion instead of politics. :)
"I appreciated blue_prawn's original post and I thought it was respectful and quite well pitched."
I agree and I would like to have that link to the itch game remain. As I said, games containing political narrative and artistic expression of political topics are an exception.
"No report button near comments"? Every comment on the site has a report spam button next to it. Where are you seeing comments without a report spam button?
Ah, there it is. I know Bonsaiheldin is not a spammer, but it looks like the place where their assets were stored is defunct and is being used to harvest clicks. Thanks for pointing that out. It should be fixed. Let me know if there are others like that.
Ragnar is not mistaken that political content is not permitted on OGA, however I am delighted to see this is in the form of a game :) ...though the content of the game is itself not quite so delightful by design. :(
Artistic expression and gamification of political topics are an exception to the "no politics" rule. Provided this thread does not devolve into the discussion of politics and stays within the bounds of discussing the game as well as the concern for our fellow community members, this is fine and welcome.
that user's last activity on the site was April 26th 2020. I hope he and our other friends in Ukraine and Russia are doing ok. If any of you are struggling and if there is anything we can do to help, please say so. If you have heard from others recently, please pass along any news.
I don't think the deletion was intentional, just coincided with a temporary topic-lock. I have the original text of it:
I don't know if they are right to do so or not, but some people that scan or take pictures of public domain contents claim copyright on these scan or pictures. They argue that the scan or the pictures are derivative works, and that they can claim copyright on it. It's true in some way that scaning all a book or taking pictures of public domain art sometimes represent a lot of work. I don't know what the law of different countries say about it.
It's not clear to me what you're asking here, or informing us of, but that isn't related to it's disappearance. If you're saying that taking a photograph of a public sculpture makes a copyrighed photo, yes that is correct. You can also convert a physical public domain book into digital scans of the book. The scans can be copyrighted, but they really shouldn't be. How does that relate to the topic of using Public Domain works to create a CC0 derivative?
That aside, I am not seeing what link you're talking about on the space game art pack extended page. can you tell me which comment it is or which commenter made it?
TL;DR: Yes, Technopeasant, you are able to adapt your derivative work as CC0, moreso than if you had relayed the images verbatim. Since it was a new adapted work derived from Public Domain content, applying CC0 to your derivative is completely appropriate. Detailed explanation below.
@bzt:
"I have already told you, I'm not a lawyer, I can only offer my opinion."
Yes, I know. I'm telling you to stop giving your opinion because it is not advancing the discussion any. If you don't have new facts to share, stop talking. It's not that you're correct but we're just misunderstanding you. It's that you're only partially correct and we're trying to fill in the missing parts. Getting in the last word just derails the topic here.
Sharing information from established law (like links to the Berne Convention) is not an opinion, it is fact. That is something you've shared that is not opinion. Thank you, but now that you've shared it, it doesn't need to be re-shared every post. We get it. Now we're trying to work out the discrepancies without individual opinion and speculation.
Sharing a legal interpretation from a legal expert like lawyers and justices can be taken as trusted, and is therefore not considered an "opinion" in this sense. Consulting a lawyer and sharing the feedback you get would be helpful; not an opinion. In all likelihood it could never be applied to generalized scenarios like this because every legal circumstance is unique. Never-the-less, in the absence of legal advice, applicable legal information from legal experts will suffice.
Surt has already linked to PublicDomainSherpa, which is legal information from legal experts. Not legal advice, but still, not an "opinion" in this sense.
"But you should ask a lawyer to be sure."
Yes, I know. As I stated earlier, "I will look into contacting my attorney for some additional insight", and indeed I have done so. With that in mind, here are the facts we have:
While US government works generally are in the public domain in the US, they may be protected by copyright abroad. The feds may claim copyright protection for US government works in other countries depending on how those countries treat their own government works: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/us-government-works.html
Berne Convention Article 3
The protection of this Convention shall apply to:
authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works, whether published or not;
Fact 2 appears to conflict with fact 3: #2 says government works may not be PD everywhere, even if they're in the PD in the US. #3 says if it is in the PD in the US, it should be in the PD everywhere* (*'everywhere' meaning Berne Convention countries).
However, "the protection of this Convention shall apply to... nationals of one of the countries...". The U.S. federal government is not a national nor an individual.
Furthermore, the Berne Convention is not for protecting the users of copyleft content. It is for protecting the authors of copyright content. It does not force authors to open their content to member countries, even if they decide to share the content openly with some, but not others. On the contrary, it protects the rights of applicable authors to enforce their copyright. So if the U.S. Federal government were an applicable author of the picture in fact #1, then this convention would be saying "yes, Feds, your work is protected and you may enforce your copyright in any of the member countries." And the feds do indeed enforce copyright on some things; back to fact #2, not everything from the US Government is actually in the Public Domain.
This is similar to the following scenario: One author on OGA has publicly shared his work under the CC-BY-SA license, but if you're someone he likes or your project is one he happens to fancy, he will privately grant individual permissions to those specific people/groups to use it under the terms "You can do anything you want, no need to credit, or even share-alike, so long as you don't redistribute it outside your own project under these same terms."
Authors may grant a somewhat restrictive license to the public, but a more permissive license to specific groups for the exact same content. The US government is allowed to enforce copyright in any Berne participating countries, while at the same time say "but US nationals can use it for whatever... 'Murica!"
This is what I meant by "there is more to it than what we are aware of."
Now for the good news. Although the US government can enforce copyright, and may do so differently in the US than it does abroad, It doesn't appear to be doing so in the case of the picture from Fact #1.
The type of content over which the US government maintains copyrights does not include images that do not contain emblems, seals, "Standard reference data", sensitive or confidential content, personally identifiable likenesses, or rights transferred to it by assignment. In this case, the images are Public Domain. My initial assumption that the "in the United States" qualifier at the end was an extra stipulation, was wrong. Apologies for that. It appears to be the same as the phrase appended to Ragnar's example; Just specifying how/where it came to be in the PD, and indicate specificity over possibly unknown similar properties in other countries.
@Technopeasant. Thank you for your patience while we worked this out. I'm sorry you were dragged into something so seemingly frivolous, but I appreciate your taking the freedoms of copyright minutiae seriously with us. The asset in question has been un-flagged.
If Ragnar or Technopeasant have any additional questions about this or how it impacts their works, then by all means let us keep discussing until your questions are satisfied.
Unless there are no further concerns, I am confident this matter is resolved. However, if anyone feels this information is in error, and the assets in question should not be treated as derivatives of public domain content, please say so and why...
...except for bzt. Since this matter is settled, there is no reason to argue for it being Public Domain more... And you have forfeited arguing against it being Public Domain after vehemently arguing for it, so the only reason for you to continue responding is to be argumentative, rude, and derailing the topic. bzt, don't be argumentative. Don't derail the topic. Don't be rude. Don't get banned.
What does the O in IMHO stand for? My point is it isn't "backed up with facts" if we're speculating about what should be a convention violation. The US military is actively doing this with some of their photographs. Either we are the first to discover a convention violation (really?) or there is more to it than what we are aware of.
You need to back up those beliefs, bzt. Where does it say that? Where does it confirm that pd assets that the government claims copyright abroad are only non-Bernie convention participants. You can't just say "because that makes the most sense. I think that's how it works."
To be clear, I do agree with you, but at this point our speculation based on limited knowledge about this form of copyright is not advancing our understanding. I will look into contacting my attorney for some additional insight.
I don't think you have anything to worry about, Ragnar. The point you were bringing up is correct and it will help remind us all to keep it about compassion instead of politics. :)
I agree and I would like to have that link to the itch game remain. As I said, games containing political narrative and artistic expression of political topics are an exception.
"No report button near comments"? Every comment on the site has a report spam button next to it. Where are you seeing comments without a report spam button?
Ah, there it is. I know Bonsaiheldin is not a spammer, but it looks like the place where their assets were stored is defunct and is being used to harvest clicks. Thanks for pointing that out. It should be fixed. Let me know if there are others like that.
Ragnar is not mistaken that political content is not permitted on OGA, however I am delighted to see this is in the form of a game :) ...though the content of the game is itself not quite so delightful by design. :(
Artistic expression and gamification of political topics are an exception to the "no politics" rule. Provided this thread does not devolve into the discussion of politics and stays within the bounds of discussing the game as well as the concern for our fellow community members, this is fine and welcome.
that user's last activity on the site was April 26th 2020. I hope he and our other friends in Ukraine and Russia are doing ok. If any of you are struggling and if there is anything we can do to help, please say so. If you have heard from others recently, please pass along any news.
I don't think the deletion was intentional, just coincided with a temporary topic-lock. I have the original text of it:
It's not clear to me what you're asking here, or informing us of, but that isn't related to it's disappearance. If you're saying that taking a photograph of a public sculpture makes a copyrighed photo, yes that is correct. You can also convert a physical public domain book into digital scans of the book. The scans can be copyrighted, but they really shouldn't be. How does that relate to the topic of using Public Domain works to create a CC0 derivative?
That aside, I am not seeing what link you're talking about on the space game art pack extended page. can you tell me which comment it is or which commenter made it?
Examples?
TL;DR: Yes, Technopeasant, you are able to adapt your derivative work as CC0, moreso than if you had relayed the images verbatim. Since it was a new adapted work derived from Public Domain content, applying CC0 to your derivative is completely appropriate. Detailed explanation below.
@bzt:
Yes, I know. I'm telling you to stop giving your opinion because it is not advancing the discussion any. If you don't have new facts to share, stop talking. It's not that you're correct but we're just misunderstanding you. It's that you're only partially correct and we're trying to fill in the missing parts. Getting in the last word just derails the topic here.
Sharing information from established law (like links to the Berne Convention) is not an opinion, it is fact. That is something you've shared that is not opinion. Thank you, but now that you've shared it, it doesn't need to be re-shared every post. We get it. Now we're trying to work out the discrepancies without individual opinion and speculation.
Sharing a legal interpretation from a legal expert like lawyers and justices can be taken as trusted, and is therefore not considered an "opinion" in this sense. Consulting a lawyer and sharing the feedback you get would be helpful; not an opinion. In all likelihood it could never be applied to generalized scenarios like this because every legal circumstance is unique. Never-the-less, in the absence of legal advice, applicable legal information from legal experts will suffice.
Surt has already linked to PublicDomainSherpa, which is legal information from legal experts. Not legal advice, but still, not an "opinion" in this sense.
Yes, I know. As I stated earlier, "I will look into contacting my attorney for some additional insight", and indeed I have done so. With that in mind, here are the facts we have:
(this is abridged for the sake of not copying the entire convention, but the full text can be seen at the following link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180523095521/http://www.wipo.int/treaties/... )
Fact 2 appears to conflict with fact 3:
#2 says government works may not be PD everywhere, even if they're in the PD in the US.
#3 says if it is in the PD in the US, it should be in the PD everywhere* (*'everywhere' meaning Berne Convention countries).
However, "the protection of this Convention shall apply to... nationals of one of the countries...". The U.S. federal government is not a national nor an individual.
Furthermore, the Berne Convention is not for protecting the users of copyleft content. It is for protecting the authors of copyright content. It does not force authors to open their content to member countries, even if they decide to share the content openly with some, but not others. On the contrary, it protects the rights of applicable authors to enforce their copyright. So if the U.S. Federal government were an applicable author of the picture in fact #1, then this convention would be saying "yes, Feds, your work is protected and you may enforce your copyright in any of the member countries." And the feds do indeed enforce copyright on some things; back to fact #2, not everything from the US Government is actually in the Public Domain.
This is similar to the following scenario: One author on OGA has publicly shared his work under the CC-BY-SA license, but if you're someone he likes or your project is one he happens to fancy, he will privately grant individual permissions to those specific people/groups to use it under the terms "You can do anything you want, no need to credit, or even share-alike, so long as you don't redistribute it outside your own project under these same terms."
Authors may grant a somewhat restrictive license to the public, but a more permissive license to specific groups for the exact same content. The US government is allowed to enforce copyright in any Berne participating countries, while at the same time say "but US nationals can use it for whatever... 'Murica!"
This is what I meant by "there is more to it than what we are aware of."
Now for the good news. Although the US government can enforce copyright, and may do so differently in the US than it does abroad, It doesn't appear to be doing so in the case of the picture from Fact #1.
The type of content over which the US government maintains copyrights does not include images that do not contain emblems, seals, "Standard reference data", sensitive or confidential content, personally identifiable likenesses, or rights transferred to it by assignment. In this case, the images are Public Domain. My initial assumption that the "in the United States" qualifier at the end was an extra stipulation, was wrong. Apologies for that. It appears to be the same as the phrase appended to Ragnar's example; Just specifying how/where it came to be in the PD, and indicate specificity over possibly unknown similar properties in other countries.
@Technopeasant. Thank you for your patience while we worked this out. I'm sorry you were dragged into something so seemingly frivolous, but I appreciate your taking the freedoms of copyright minutiae seriously with us. The asset in question has been un-flagged.
If Ragnar or Technopeasant have any additional questions about this or how it impacts their works, then by all means let us keep discussing until your questions are satisfied.
Unless there are no further concerns, I am confident this matter is resolved. However, if anyone feels this information is in error, and the assets in question should not be treated as derivatives of public domain content, please say so and why...
...except for bzt. Since this matter is settled, there is no reason to argue for it being Public Domain more... And you have forfeited arguing against it being Public Domain after vehemently arguing for it, so the only reason for you to continue responding is to be argumentative, rude, and derailing the topic. bzt, don't be argumentative. Don't derail the topic. Don't be rude. Don't get banned.
What does the O in IMHO stand for? My point is it isn't "backed up with facts" if we're speculating about what should be a convention violation. The US military is actively doing this with some of their photographs. Either we are the first to discover a convention violation (really?) or there is more to it than what we are aware of.
You need to back up those beliefs, bzt. Where does it say that? Where does it confirm that pd assets that the government claims copyright abroad are only non-Bernie convention participants. You can't just say "because that makes the most sense. I think that's how it works."
To be clear, I do agree with you, but at this point our speculation based on limited knowledge about this form of copyright is not advancing our understanding. I will look into contacting my attorney for some additional insight.
Pages