@ Shyamal
Thanks for your reply. Thanks for referring to CC0 documentation. Those who are already following this discussion thread can refer to 1st and last point i.e. 1) & 4 D) and ofcourse the disclaimer.
1) The main purpose of document meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) is, uitlise available provisions-processess for copyright relinqushment under Indian Copyright law.
2) At the same time comply with the law and spirit of 'free cultural work definition' to the best possible extant.
Legal aspect in the free cultural work definition is, "No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be
covered by legal restrictions ....or limitations
.... which would impede the freedoms enumerated ... . A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in
order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which
are unambiguously free constitute a free work. "
3) As issue raised by me at meta rfc I feel there is a need to revisit clause by clause; Section 21 subsection (3), Section 30A, Section 19 subsections 1,2,4,5,6; Section 57 subsection(1) clause (b) of Indian Copyright Act 1957, to be inline with spirit of 'free cultural work definition'
4 A) Now you suggested to refer to CC0 I feel the same to be ok enough vis a vis Section 57 (1) b;
4 B) If words legal tool and Waiver are used and word licence is not used section 30A and inturn Section 19 (1) provision asking for written signature is less likely to come in to picture and a public anouncement of relinqushment is supposed to be enough wide section 21 (But still we can not be 100 % sure since word licence is not defined in Indian Copyright act)
4 C) CC0 Waiver seems to take care some more concerns arising out of section 19 subsection 2,3,4,5,6
4 D) Vis a vis to CC0 now refer to Section 21 subsection (3) and section 19 subsection (8) It is perfectly ok that CC0 and Indian Copyright act are quite carefull enough that those do not infringe upon non concenting other authors or rights of contractual oblgation with a copyright society. But if in a given work's authorship or rights are shared by non-concenting multiple authors or shared by a copy right society and and only one or limited number of authors are conceting to CC0 declaration and by ommission or commission are not disclosing existance of rights of other parties then there is (atleas an hypothetical direct or indirect) lapse in fullfilling free cultural work definition that expects
The work itself must not be
covered by legal restrictions ....or limitations
.... which would impede the freedoms enumerated
As per my personal openion this possibility of lapse calls in(need) for some additional measure or protocall to be followed in to confirm from CC0 concenting that there in no such likely impediment from any other owner of the work or any copyright society. I suppose Wikimedia commons also expects an upload should not have such impedement but uploading user is not informed in clear terms of this requirement as of now. And that needs and can be done through upload wizard.
Rgds.
Following is CC0 code. Code of other CC licences may be different and I have not studied or refered to other CC licences for this discussion uptil now.
 | |||||||
Creative Commons Legal Code Official translations of this legal tool are available in other languages. ... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
These are my personal perceptions and not a legal advice. For forma advice please always consult to your own professional leagal adivisor . Legal disclaimers: 1,User:Mahitgar - Meta , Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , उत्तरदायकत्वास नकार (माहितगारकृत) | मिसळपाव
On Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:44 PM, Shyamal Lakshminarayanan <lshyamal@gmail.com> wrote:
Mahitgar,
Seeing the comments on the talk page I think the confusion is due to the lack of context that seems to force the reader to think between the lines. For instance on my first read it looked like you were implicitly stating that the requirement of 'free cultural work' is not being met by the CC licensing variants available. Perhaps this deals only with relinquishing copyright - ie releasing into the "public domain" rather than licensing? My belief has been that CC0 works in the Indian jurisdiction. Assuming that you are stating it does not, it might help to specifically explain why you think CC0 does not work in India.
best wishesSeeing the comments on the talk page I think the confusion is due to the lack of context that seems to force the reader to think between the lines. For instance on my first read it looked like you were implicitly stating that the requirement of 'free cultural work' is not being met by the CC licensing variants available. Perhaps this deals only with relinquishing copyright - ie releasing into the "public domain" rather than licensing? My belief has been that CC0 works in the Indian jurisdiction. Assuming that you are stating it does not, it might help to specifically explain why you think CC0 does not work in India.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia <mahitgar@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.RgdsMahitgar
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l