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.
To reiterate, the question is if the submission can stay on OGA. The question is NOT if the asset can be used by a Canadian/US citizen or not. Assets on OGA must be reasonably safe for Europeans, Australians, UK, et al as well. If images in the Public Domain are still claimed as copyrighted by the US government abroad, then they are an exception to the Bernie Convention. The questions in my earlier comment ( https://opengameart.org/comment/97510#comment-97510 ) remain unanswered.
Again, I agree with bzt on that point. It fell into the PD in 1927. It says "in the USA" but that is referring to the lack of information about other publications in other countries, not that it isn't PD outside the US. That isn't the same as work that is placed into a weird Public-Domain-but-only-in-the-US by the US military. the "in the USA" part of that book's license appears to be saying "did you derive stuff from this book? or a Spanish version of this book?" If it was actually that book and not "Una introducción al estudio de los jeroglíficos mayas por Sylvanus Griswold Morley", then your derivatives are truly from PD.
The most relevant part of what surt said should not be left out; "it's not really public domain."
Any time you add extra stipulations to a license, it is no longer that license.
"This is licensed CC-BY. just give me credit. but also, don't resell it"
Well, not really CC-BY any more, is it?
"GPL: if it's used with other art, that other art must also be GPL, but only if you're using it commercially"
Well, not really GPL any more, is it?
"Public Domain: Do whatever you want with it, but only within the United States"
Well, not really Public Domain anymore, is it?
For your own personal uses, I think bzt's assessment is fairly solid. However, since the question is 'what does this mean for OGA?', mmmnot quite as safe: Yes, I know, PD is more like the absence of copyright than it is a copyright license, but the underlying effect is, if it isn't one of the licenses we accept on OGA, and it can't be converted to one of those same licenses, then we can't host it here. Note that I'm not saying "we cannot host Technopheasant's FPS pistols". I'm saying "I am not sure if derivatives of 'Public Domain US Military' can be licensed as CC0 or not." It's possible the answer is "yeah, that's totally fine" but I'm not sure. That's the part we need more information on.
Until we have that additional clarification, I must mark those derivatives as having a licensing issue. Because they may not be safe to use outside the US, and that is not something we expect any of our users to govern.
@bzt, please don't say stuff like "not possible" when it is not only possible, but easy. Is it possible to have the file saved as monochrome palette? no, probably not, but that isn't what Gaymoo was asking, nor are the files currently stored as an actual monochrome palette anyway. The sprites themselves are still monochrome even if the file's palette wouldn't be. An indexed palette with 1-bit transparency works just fine. The attached is less than half the file size of the original. If gaymoo mentions an interest in the intricacies of marginal gains in storage space and load times of overly-complicated image handling in game engines, then we can discuss more, but otherwise that kind of stuff is off-topic on this thread.
@Gaymoo: eh, for almost any other color set, it may be more useful to have a transparent background, but for black and white assets like these? It is trivial to just select all white (or black?) pixels and convert to transparent, so I would say nah, no need to submit a transparent version. The developer who wants to use it can do that if they need it. It certainly doesn't make it less useful if you choose to do so, though. More variety of useful forms is always better than less. :)
This thread will be closed for 48 hours in an effort to mitigate increasing toxicity levels.
Anyone is welcome to discuss this with me via PM without risk of repercussions, but arguing elsewhere about the thread-lock or starting a new thread about this same topic will result in an account suspension.
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.
To reiterate, the question is if the submission can stay on OGA. The question is NOT if the asset can be used by a Canadian/US citizen or not. Assets on OGA must be reasonably safe for Europeans, Australians, UK, et al as well. If images in the Public Domain are still claimed as copyrighted by the US government abroad, then they are an exception to the Bernie Convention. The questions in my earlier comment ( https://opengameart.org/comment/97510#comment-97510 ) remain unanswered.
Again, I agree with bzt on that point. It fell into the PD in 1927. It says "in the USA" but that is referring to the lack of information about other publications in other countries, not that it isn't PD outside the US. That isn't the same as work that is placed into a weird Public-Domain-but-only-in-the-US by the US military. the "in the USA" part of that book's license appears to be saying "did you derive stuff from this book? or a Spanish version of this book?" If it was actually that book and not "Una introducción al estudio de los jeroglíficos mayas por Sylvanus Griswold Morley", then your derivatives are truly from PD.
The most relevant part of what surt said should not be left out; "it's not really public domain."
Any time you add extra stipulations to a license, it is no longer that license.
Well, not really CC-BY any more, is it?
Well, not really GPL any more, is it?
Well, not really Public Domain anymore, is it?
For your own personal uses, I think bzt's assessment is fairly solid. However, since the question is 'what does this mean for OGA?', mmmnot quite as safe: Yes, I know, PD is more like the absence of copyright than it is a copyright license, but the underlying effect is, if it isn't one of the licenses we accept on OGA, and it can't be converted to one of those same licenses, then we can't host it here. Note that I'm not saying "we cannot host Technopheasant's FPS pistols". I'm saying "I am not sure if derivatives of 'Public Domain US Military' can be licensed as CC0 or not." It's possible the answer is "yeah, that's totally fine" but I'm not sure. That's the part we need more information on.
Until we have that additional clarification, I must mark those derivatives as having a licensing issue. Because they may not be safe to use outside the US, and that is not something we expect any of our users to govern.
@bzt, please don't say stuff like "not possible" when it is not only possible, but easy. Is it possible to have the file saved as monochrome palette? no, probably not, but that isn't what Gaymoo was asking, nor are the files currently stored as an actual monochrome palette anyway. The sprites themselves are still monochrome even if the file's palette wouldn't be. An indexed palette with 1-bit transparency works just fine. The attached is less than half the file size of the original. If gaymoo mentions an interest in the intricacies of marginal gains in storage space and load times of overly-complicated image handling in game engines, then we can discuss more, but otherwise that kind of stuff is off-topic on this thread.
@Gaymoo: eh, for almost any other color set, it may be more useful to have a transparent background, but for black and white assets like these? It is trivial to just select all white (or black?) pixels and convert to transparent, so I would say nah, no need to submit a transparent version. The developer who wants to use it can do that if they need it. It certainly doesn't make it less useful if you choose to do so, though. More variety of useful forms is always better than less. :)
This thread will be closed for 48 hours in an effort to mitigate increasing toxicity levels.
Anyone is welcome to discuss this with me via PM without risk of repercussions, but arguing elsewhere about the thread-lock or starting a new thread about this same topic will result in an account suspension.
Ah, I see! "Inter Governmental Oranization". Interesting. Good find, marko. Thanks.
Pages