@ 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   |   | |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | Creative Commons Legal CodeOfficial translations of this legal tool are available in other languages. ... | | | | View on creativecommons.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   |  Disclaimer 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  |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place... | | | | View on en.wikipedia.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   | |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | उत्तरदायकत्वास नकार (माहितगारकृत) | मिसळपावमिसळपाव या संकेतस्थळावर उपलब्ध माहितीनुसार मिसळपाव संकेतस्थळ हे एक येथे नमुद धोरणांच्या परिघात सामुदायिक लेखन वाचन सहभागास अनुमती देणारे खाजगी मालकीचे संकेतस्थळ आहे. सदर संकेतस्थळाने दिलेल्या नियमांच्या चौकटीच्या मर्यादा सांभाळून संगणक वापरणार्‍या व आंतरजाल जोडणी उपलब्ध असलेल्या क... | | | | View on www.misalpav.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   | |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | User:Mahitgar - Meta* Disclaimer wmf:Wikimedia:General disclaimer en:w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer mr:w:विकिपीडिया:सर्वसाधारण_उत्तरदायकत्वास_नकार en:w:Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer en:w:Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer | | | | View on meta.wikimedia.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   |   On Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:44 PM, Shyamal Lakshminarayanan <lshyamal(a)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 wishes [[en:User:Shyamal]] On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia <mahitgar(a)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. Rgds Mahitgar _______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l  

Shyamal, :) Now its my turn to say sorry (Because I was putting forward all the points with the consideration that Indian law remains applicable directly or indirectly - In any case thanks atleast you responded a legal issue discussion usualy people are afraid of). (Disclaimers mentioned in email are applicable: This eMail does not constitute legal advice, and no action should be taken or omitted on the basis of its contents. ) If you are your self a lawayer or already had discussion on subject of 'choice of law' with any legal expert then please let me know such reference or background, since I am not regular visitor to this email list. 1) Even before putting up case for direct applicability of Indian law, Whether it is   definition of free cultural work or most of the free licences expect free redistribution  should be possible through any media  such as print or say a cd; Now if some one wants to print some media from wikimedia wiki and redistribute in India, which law the fellow is going to face U.S. law or the Indian law ?  I wish believers of this theory sincerely revisit spirit of free cultural work definition before coming to the conclusion that Indian law does not have. 2) Now we come to the 'choice of law'  2A)   Before I began my study to put forward rfc, one Indian legal expert (with her disclaimer) had replied  to my query that, " I believe that online content accessible in India should complywith Indian law including with the Indian Copyright Act. .... "  and my query was  "Many (most) Indian wikipedians usually tend to believe that Fair usage clause under US laws only will be applicable event to Indian content or images since wikimedia servers are in USA and they do not need to bother about Indian copyright act position. Whether those people are correct to believe so;" 2B)  When you say "As far as I know, the servers of the mr.wikipedia as well as commons are hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation out of USA and is entirely under US copyright jurisdiction; and all content on the servers only need to fulfill the requirements of US law." probably you are representing the partial truth, rather than the word "only" what I would make bold is "...all content on the servers only need to fulfill the requirements of US law."  This sentence is probably talking only about servers only and missing the affected Users who are human being, the network and aparatus used in India, and the place of cause of action etc. is being forgotten. 2C) "..........Second, the mere fact that a host server is located in Country B, without more, does not give Country B jurisdiction.....It is increasingly common in the global marketplace that two or more countries have jurisdiction to hear the dispute........... " ~ by Sarah Bird - Reference : International Copyright on the Web: What Rules Apply to Me and What Court Will Apply Them? 2C) I had raised the same RFC issue with the WMF legal team member and replying person discussed about their research effort on the subject, but uptil now in none of the emails to me he never said that Indian law need not be considered. 2D) Wikimedia foundation Resolution:Licensing_policy  is clear enough on this issue and it expects every individual language wikipedia project to have indipendent Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) it states "A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status"    I believe that there is scope to revisit and challange our own long held perceptions. And hope that  we are not  in denial  or we are not looking for a face saver because Indian law seems to put forwards some challanges to our perceptions and we are afraid to face them, I suppose we should not be. (Please do not take this as a personal criticism every one is free to hold his or her own openions and perceptions after all and face the law on their own end of the day.)   Disclaimer These are my personal perceptions and not a legal advice. For formal 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   Thanks Rgds Mahitgar On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 1:47 PM, Shyamal Lakshminarayanan <lshyamal(a)gmail.com> wrote: Mahitgar, sorry but I still do not get the context. As far as I know, the servers of the mr.wikipedia as well as commons are hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation out of USA and is entirely under US copyright jurisdiction; and all content on the servers only need to fulfill the requirements of US law. In any case I think CC0 and PD represent the extreme of freedom that, based on my personal interactions with artists and photographers, few private individuals in India would consider. Most individuals seem to prefer a cc-by-nc-nd. A 2009 study by Creative Commons shows that on Flickr, the restrictive licenses are more popular (less than a quarter are Commons compatible) - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13588 This does however raise an interesting question on whether Indian/Indic users make an intelligent choice of licenses when uploading on Commons. For a general idea of the break up of files by license-type - see the figures in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_Creative_Commons_licenses - the numbers indicated here are tricky as a single file can be under multiple licenses. However this should give some sense on license popularity and tell us where educational efforts are needed. PD and CC0 represent under 5% of the files. CC-BY-1.0‎              6912      0.04 CC-BY-2.0‎           1530362      8.69 CC-BY-2.5‎            277995      1.58 CC-BY-3.0‎           1094029      6.21 CC-BY-4.0‎            157993      0.90 CC-BY-SA-1.0‎          27496      0.16 CC-BY-SA-2.0‎        2956920     16.79 CC-BY-SA-2.5‎         309394      1.76 CC-BY-SA-3.0‎        7586634     43.08 CC-BY-SA-3.0-mig    1087942      6.18 CC-BY-SA-3.0-migd     66639      0.38 CC-BY-SA-4.0‎        1750361      9.94 CC-PD‎                  4315      0.02 CC-SA-1.0‎              3842      0.02 CC-Zero‎              749656      4.26 TOTAL LICENSES     17610490   CC-BY variants    17.42 % CC-BY-SA variants 78.28 % CC0/PD             4.28 % best wishes en.user:Shyamal