Creative Commons Adds A 'No Copyright At All' Option

from the go-go-public-domain dept

Just two months ago, we were pointing out how difficult it was to opt-out of copyright and put content into the public domain. We noted that it wasn’t solved by Creative Commons — who had a series of licenses that all relied on copyright, and none that removed all restrictions. Looks like the CC folks were listening (not to me, necessarily, but to others who raised similar issues). They have now released a new offering to help content creators declare their work to be in the public domain. They’re calling it CC0. While it looks just like other CC licenses, it’s not actually a “license,” but a waiver/declaration that the content is in the public domain. This is a fantastic move, and we’ll certainly be checking it out in more detail to see if it makes sense for us and the content posted here.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: creative commons

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Creative Commons Adds A 'No Copyright At All' Option”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
GeneralEmergency (profile) says:

From the (non) license..

“A Work made available under CC0 may be protected by copyright and related or neighboring rights”

Please. Let’s just eliminate copyright altogether so this sort of tortured legal reasoning is not required.

At a bare minimum, returning copyright to explicit, opt-in, expensive as hell to register for and short terms (5 years) for would solve a multitude of problems.

GeneralEmergency (profile) says:

Re: Re: From the (non) license..

You are being granted a limited term monopoly that will likely place additional burdens on our legal system.

Copyright and Patent application fees collected today in no way offset the expense to society for the use of the court systems.

And why do you think –your– “Work” is worthy of monopoly protection of the federal government? Have you crated a work that took 20,000 hours off your lifetime to create?

Me thinks not.

Blaise Alleyne (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: From the (non) license..

Ehn, I think an inexpensive fee would go along way. You know, mental transaction costs and all?

I mean, if it costs nothing to acquire a copyright on something now, and damages for 20-however-many-songs it was are $225,000 USD… how much do you think copyright holders will want if it cost them $10,000 to get a copyright for five years?

Ken says:

Re: Re: From the (non) license..

Ummm – obtaining copyright protection doesn’t cost anything. the creator of a work automatically has all the rights associated with a copyright, including the right to exclude other OR NOT TO EXCLUDE OTHER, as soon as the work is “fixed in a tangible form.”

So unless you mean “expensive as hell” and there is no money in hell, your comments are misplaced.

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

This should be telling...

When it takes a license/waiver to put stuff in the public domain (and even that might not be enough in some jurisdictions) that should set off alarms.

Sort of like taking a walk in the woods and suddenly seeing “No Trespassing” signs everywhere. Even on the woods you own.

It’s been a stealthy theft, I’ll give them that.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

A no copyright option is nice, but it cannot revoke anyone else’s claim to code (or content). Example, if you make a nice new software widget that uses someone else’s plugin, then you cannot really make the whole thing CC0. You could only do so by breaking the package into it’s pieces and making your own pieces CC0, and allow them to download the other pieces from other places.

You may CC0 a video. But if the video contains elements that are copyrighted in any way, that CC0 would not be valid.

In reality, CC0 could actually lead to liablity, as it could be taken as a declaration that could shift liablity in case of copyright action against the end user(s).

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Do we need this?

You can do the “This post is public domain”, except you cannot override or deny techdirt’s copyright claims to anything posted here, unless they too waive it, and so on. It’s a whole complicated ball of wax.

It’s the problem of any assault on any of the triad of copyright, patent, and trademark: Stuff doesn’t exist in a vacuum, there is almost always some little hitch that connections something to something else that you don’t really have the right to put in the public domain. It is why much of the railing against the system is amusing, but much more difficult to achieve than Mike and his crew would you like to think.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...