# License our work?



## Diti (Apr 26, 2008)

Hello,

I uploaded my first picture on FA yesterday. Whatever for me or for others, all works are copyrighted like this :


> This submission is copyright Â© 2008 Diti



But what about artists who want their work to be distributed (i.e. musicians or unknown drawers)? I think FA should have a Creative Commons license selector.

Eventually, CC copylefted works should be shown as it, for instance :



> This submission is released under
> 
> Â© 2008 Diti



Or without the picture :


> This submission is released under CC-by-nc-sa Â© 2008 Diti




So, will be an *license template selector* on FA on the future?
Thank you. =3

NB : For my personal usage, I prefer the by-sa one.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Apr 26, 2008)

Now this is something that I believe should definitely be implemented in some form or another. Even if it's just in the upcoming Ferrox, I wholeheartedly support this.


----------



## Calorath (Apr 26, 2008)

I rather like this idea.


----------



## Ailure (Apr 26, 2008)

Why limit it at Creative commons? Why not let people able to even input their own license, if they so desire (such as if I want to release something I made under the liberal BSD license). Of course, I do think creative commons are good as a start though... since it's suitable for artworks in general.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Apr 26, 2008)

There are a lot of licensing options that should be implemented, yes, even simple things like stuff that falls under the For You half of FA's policy (so you can identify the original artist of the work). This idea, however, seems to be the easiest way to implement it, AND it adds a whole lot more that really should be considered.


----------



## tsawolf (Apr 26, 2008)

All those licenses depend on copyright.  The images are still copyright to you, but they're just additionally released for public use under certain terms as governed by the licenses.

Without the copyright, there's nothing protecting people from doing whatever they want with your images beyond their rights under whatever license you choose.

Therefore, the copyright should stay. You can add additional comments in the description.


----------



## Diti (Apr 26, 2008)

Ailure said:


> Why limit it at Creative commons? Why not let people able to even input their own license, if they so desire (such as if I want to release something I made under the liberal BSD license). Of course, I do think creative commons are good as a start though... since it's suitable for artworks in general.


Because CC just need to quote the author. If you choose a GNU or a BSD licence and print your work, you need to print the 3 pages of license too xD



tsawolf said:


> All those licenses depend on copyright.  The images are still copyright to you, but they're just additionally released for public use under certain terms as governed by the licenses.
> 
> Without the copyright, there's nothing protecting people from doing whatever they want with your images beyond their rights under whatever license you choose.


No, that's wrong. Copyrighting a work like FA is doing actually is absolutely useless, because the international laws applies. That you are describing is a licence too, the public domain.





tsawolf said:


> Therefore, the copyright should stay. You can add additional comments in the description.


I think redistribution licenses like CC should be visible on the same location as the (useless ) copyright mention.


----------



## XeNoX (Apr 26, 2008)

yes please


----------



## tsawolf (Apr 26, 2008)

Diti said:


> No, that's wrong. Copyrighting a work like FA is doing actually is absolutely useless, because the international laws applies. That you are describing is a licence too, the public domain.
> 
> 
> I think redistribution licenses like CC should be visible on the same location as the (useless ) copyright mention.


First of all, FA isn't copyrighting anything. We're simply stating that the users hold copyright on the image, which is true.  Copyright is automatically attached when an image is created. (1).

Second of all, the Berne Convention is an international treaty that the United States is a signatory to - the United States had to make an implementation of it. Hence the Berne Convention Act of 1988 (2).

Copyright is required for all open source licenses. It's a general fact. Creative commons says it (3,  How does a Creative Commons license operate?), the GPL says it (4) - without the copyright, there would be no ability to enforce the licenses attached. They all depend on copyright to function.


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 27, 2008)

I guess I'd be the only one who wouldn't want my work automatically creative commons'd, then.


----------



## Diti (Apr 27, 2008)

tsawolf said:


> Copyright is required for all open source licenses. It's a general fact. Creative commons says it (3,  How does a Creative Commons license operate?), the GPL says it (4) - without the copyright, there would be no ability to enforce the licenses attached. They all depend on copyright to function.


Yeah, but doesn't the Berne Convention automatically says that the work is copyrighted?

And TakeWalker, my request is for adding a licence selector, but of course you can choose not to put your work on a copylefted licence, only with copyright  .


----------



## Eevee (Apr 27, 2008)

yes, would like to do this.


----------



## tsawolf (Apr 27, 2008)

Diti said:


> Yeah, but doesn't the Berne Convention automatically says that the work is copyrighted.



Yes, which is why saying the art is copyright <user> is correct.


----------



## Diti (Apr 27, 2008)

Oh, right  .


----------



## RailRide (Apr 27, 2008)

Isn't the copyright declaration less effective (or even worthless) if attributed to a pseudonym?

At very least the copyright declaration should be (optionally) assignable to a real name.

---PCJ


----------



## tsawolf (Apr 28, 2008)

RailRide said:


> Isn't the copyright declaration less effective (or even worthless) if attributed to a pseudonym?
> 
> At very least the copyright declaration should be (optionally) assignable to a real name.
> 
> ---PCJ



Well, right, the attribution to a pseudonym is technically incorrect.  That being said, it serves the purpose to demonstrate that FA does not hold the copyright on that image.


----------



## Diti (May 5, 2008)

Hmm, shouldn't this message have a better place on the suggestions forum?


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 5, 2008)

Creative Commons help because it will also help prove work is your own when the Orphan Works legislation passes.


----------



## Aurali (May 5, 2008)

TakeWalker said:


> I guess I'd be the only one who wouldn't want my work automatically creative commons'd, then.



No, I don't want a creative commons either.. some of my works and other artists of depictions of my things have registered copyrights to them, and an automatic creative commons would cause more tension then it's worth.

However, if there were ways to choose which version of it is placed (as well as a normal copyright), I'd be alright with that.


----------



## tsawolf (May 5, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Creative Commons help because it will also help prove work is your own when the Orphan Works legislation passes.



Nooo, it wonnn't! 

Creative Commons licenses would be null and void if the Orphan Works legislation passes and the copyright holder (also the CC license holder) cannot be contacted.

If the copyright would expire, CC expires. Without copyright, there is no copyleft. Except for public domain, which is the absence of copy anything.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 5, 2008)

tsawolf said:


> Nooo, it wonnn't!
> 
> Creative Commons licenses would be null and void if the Orphan Works legislation *passes and the copyright holder (also the CC license holder) cannot be contacted.*
> 
> If the copyright would expire, CC expires. Without copyright, there is no copyleft. Except for public domain, which is the absence of copy anything.



You just invalided this with your second statement

If the person cannot be contacted is the key phrase. Leaving a CC means there is still contact information!


----------



## Aurali (May 5, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> You just invalided this with your second statement
> 
> If the person cannot be contacted is the key phrase. Leaving a CC means there is still contact information!




Yet there is a difference between being contactable and having contact info :3 If the contactor cannot contact the contactee even if contact info of the contactee is provided, then the contactee cannot be contacted^^

oh.. and of course.. legal readingz for you all
http://www.geocities.com/williampatry875a/HR_Orphan_Works_Act_of_2006_1.pdf


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 5, 2008)

Uhh yeah. That means if the person didn't do due diligence such as using all contact info available they don't qualify for Orphan Works defense. A CC helps with contact info that would have otherwise been impossible to find.

The court would have to rule that it was due diligence since it is one of the requirements.

IE a person cannot assume the work is orphan if the person doesn't respond within a week or something or the email off one contact bounces. With CC you have more than one way of proving the work cannot be assumed as "Orphan"

Just like a guy posting an image on 4chan going "sauce plz" and not getting a response means work is Orphan. It requires the person to go through a more diligent search. 

Again it is to your benefit to use a CC to help show that you've made attempts to make yourself contactable and gives less leeway for an "Orphan Defense"

Even if the person was successfully to show he was diligent in the search and used the work, you're still entitled to reasonable compensation (which is most often fair market value for your work's usage) if you show up and prove the work is yours since Orphan is a temporary status.

The only reason for preventing statutory damages are for those that didn't bother to *update* the registry information on a copyright which is what entitles you to statutory in the first place.

There is still no "get out of paying free" card unless you can successfully prove this was educational...and it's a bit hard to use furry art in an educational way.


----------



## Aurali (May 5, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> <snip examples>


Exactly^^ It's best to explain what you mean, your previous post had loopholes..



> There is still no "get out of paying free" card unless you can successfully prove this was educational...and it's a bit hard to use furry art in an educational way.


The Fair Use act usually gets in the way of that statement...

Unless your receiving some form of compensation for the works, then your usually free to post modifications of work as long as you claim that the works are not your own..


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 5, 2008)

Eli said:


> Exactly^^ It's best to explain what you mean, your previous post had loopholes..
> 
> 
> The Fair Use act usually gets in the way of that statement...
> ...



Not as much of a loophole as you think if you read both the House and Senate bills.

Partials of the work. Not just modifications.

In cases where fair use may not apply such as displaying the work as a whole. There are cases where "Fair Use" doesn't apply so "usually" is *very* subjective

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Those are just some examples.


----------



## Aurali (May 5, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Not as much of a loophole as you think if you read both the House and Senate bills.
> 
> Partials of the work. Not just modifications.


I thought I included that


> In cases where fair use may not apply such as displaying the work as a whole. There are cases where "Fair Use" doesn't apply so "usually" is *very* subjective
> 
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
> 
> Those are just some examples.



:3 so your a word picker huh? okies :3

There are two factors that are considered when fair use is done.. or just one.. money :3
If an art takes away from licensing from another company,  or "You make them lose money"
Or if an art gains revenue for the other companies idea, or "You get money by using their stuff"

HOWEVER, a good lawyer can always persuade a court in such touchy manners such as these, so if any of you Pokemon fans take out a commission, you better watch yourself... :3


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 5, 2008)

Or reputation, which you forgot about that. It's not just a money loss. See the Cat in the Hat case.


----------



## Diti (May 7, 2008)

I don't know the Cat in the Hat, but I agree with Arshes Nei about reputation.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 7, 2008)

Diti said:


> I don't know the Cat in the Hat, but I agree with Arshes Nei about reputation.



In the link I provided with a list of fair use cases there was a case about someone using Dr Suess' characters to explain how OJ Simpson committed a murder. In that case the defendant claimed it was a parody, however the courts ruled that it's not a parody about the Cat in the Hat (Dr Suess characters) so it was considered infringement.

While Copyright isn't about morality the person who legally owns the copyright and it's a registered work can feel infringement not for financial reasons but endorsement or usage of his/her works against the person's views. So, while the remedy involves money it may not actually be about money.


----------

