On 1/16/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So is it useful for us to add CC0 as a licence option equivalent to our "public domain or equivalent" (where, if public domain release is not possible, the work is licenced for use by anyone for any purpose)? How's the uptake of CC0?
If we added such an option, I imagine it would be to /replace/ PD-self, not as something alongside it. It seems like it could be a reasonable thing for us to do but I expect our legal heads to give it a once-over first.
Input encouraged from legal and non-legal heads...
As for uptake, it was literally launched a few months ago,
The project was first mentioned 2007-11-14 at http://public.resource.org/case_law_announcement.html and is now in a public discussion phase. There should be zero uptake at this point, as it isn't ready to use. :)
so there is no uptake to speak of. The Open Clipart Library (OCAL) is planning to switch to it (they were previously using CC-PD, public domain dedication).
There will probably be a long list of existing CC PD dedication users and others publishing copyright-free stuff ready to implement CC0, when it is ready, but that will take some time.
I am a bit confused as to how the second bit works, "providing a means by which any person can assert that there are no copyrights in a particular work, in a way that allows others to judge the reliability of that assertion." *imagines digg-style voting on PD justifications* mm... not quite.
More likely curators that have already built up reputation offline, like museums, but assertions on a community site could be more or less trusted depending on the community. I'd probably trust information that survives on Wikimedia Commons more than that which gets voted up on a digg style site. :)
To be clear, CC isn't building a trust metric, but hopes that with some standards around such assertions others could build such metrics.
Mike