Some days I wonder if, quietly, CC0 is actually a bigger success story than the other @creativecommons licenses put together. Not to slight the other licenses! But CC0 is increasingly catalytic in the library, museum, and data spaces.
@luis_in_brief I've finally found some time to look through it. One of my little projects is always checking "Oh hey are there some newly CC-0 licensed images which can go in Wikipedia?"
Amusingly, some of those images are already IN Wikipedia because while Getty may own a print image, for example, the work itself was created by the government (PD) so it's got different free licenses different places.
@jessamyn I do wonder if there’s a spot for something like the Wikidata games for matching these CC0 images with Wikidata records (and eventually articles)? cc @magnusmanske
@jessamyn (I forgot to add: many of the people who do so much of the vital 80% of license-related work take personal offense if you tell them that the remaining 20% will often be as destructive as it is constructive.)
A great question by @deborahh ("how to search open images?") with a great answer: https://openverse.org, Wordpress's open-image search site.
Update: Apparently the Getty is not yet accessible via Openverse, but they have an API, so it should be doable if someone wants a new hacking project! https://github.com/WordPress/openverse/issues/3893
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons In some sectors definitely! One thing I've struggled with, though, is the distinction between CC0 and PD Mark in the case of cultural heritage. It seems to create some confusion.
@felwert yeah, that might be worth updating our documentation on. I think PD Mark was a legally-correct approach (and possibly even the right thing for usage here by the museum!) but has obviously failed to get traction.
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons imho whole project is a huge success. It is society trying to claim back some sanity in copyright space corrupted by corporation lawyering.
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons I wonder how much it's a matter of branding. If you ask a museum CEO for permission to put all their stuff in the public domain, the kneejerk reaction is likely to be no, but perhaps if you ask to place it under the CC0 waiver, it's more likely to be yes 🙂
@mike I’d like to think that it’s about CC’s extensive educational efforts around the value of CC0 in science but, uh, yeah, branding possibly has something to do with it too 😂
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons It sounds counter-intuitive, but: CC0 work is generally the easiest to work with, when it comes to creating derivative works from it.
I tend to lean very heavily on CC0, Public Domain, and Royalty-Free media when creating featured thumbnails for articles. On the one hand, I generally have less to work with. But, on the other hand, I can really lean into weird and wild glitch collages that I might not be able to use otherwise.
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons@dajb I think CC0 was only created 10 years into CC's existence because @lessig is an academic, and giving credit (i.e., any CC license with BY) is an absolute scholarly value.
Which makes academia's embrace of genAI really weird to me, since it is based on the work of others w/o giving any credit. Why don't academics just viscerally reject genAI for that reason? Is it because this violation of a basic academic norm is happening "at scale"?
@poritzj@luis_in_brief@creativecommons@dajb@lessig
Way back - before web & maybe before 80's copy machines - academics kept the normative, social value questions of plagiarism separate fr the legal permission questions of copyright.
But w/over the last generation or so, the two issues have become confounded in most academics' minds. The CC initiative has contributed to that, IMO, but easy tech avail has done the most.
Now most academics think the two issues are same.
@econproph@poritzj@creativecommons@dajb@lessig I can’t speak to the older history, but yeah, they’re certainly conflated now. I think CC has an opportunity to help re-clarify those in the current moment but we’re also very, very strapped for time :/
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons So what exactly is being licensed under CC0? Presumably the artwork they've photographed is out of copyright, or they wouldn't be able to release these in the first place.
Is this just to cover the case of whether the simple act of photographing the paintings might be enough to be covered by copyright?
@jamesh I can’t speak to their analysis, obviously, but:
(1) a lot of museums presume that there is a copyright in the photos and/or descriptive text
(2) it’s nice, as a consumer, to know that the scanning entity has disclaimed any rights whether or not those rights exist.
That second one is the big one for a lot of reuse, especially reuse at scale. It’s key for uses like GBIF (which I tooted about earlier) and Wikidata, which presumably aren’t protectable at the database row-level.
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons I would love to see more people using these open-source Getty art images instead of AI-generated non-art. Thank you, Getty! Below,
Lotus Blossom Star
100 B.C.–A.D. 50
Unknown artist/maker
@cmeinel@luis_in_brief@creativecommons I always note (and boost) these great public domain sites ... but don't use them, thinking it'd be overwhelming - how would I wade through it all?
@luis_in_brief@creativecommons We're definitely looking at ways to think about how we can use CC0 in addition to the "No Known Copyright Restrictions" statement that our organizations use at Flickr Commons.
Add comment