GPL / Public Domain clarification

Discuss, get help with, or post new graphics for TTDPatch and OpenTTD, using the NewGRF system, here. Graphics for plain TTD also acceptable here.

Moderator: Graphics Moderators

User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by andythenorth »

I am creating a grf which I would like to release under some version of the GNU GPL. However, I am planning to reuse artwork from authors who have stated (publicly and clearly) that the artwork I wish to use is in the public domain.

A quick bit of research turned up this very straightforward clarification on the GNU site, about use of public domain material with the GPL (quoted below). This seems to cover my proposed useage precisely and completely.

Does anyone see any problem with this?
Public Domain

Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.
Found at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

cheers,

Andy
Last edited by andythenorth on 01 Dec 2008 07:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
planetmaker
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 9432
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:44
Location: Sol d

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by planetmaker »

In simple terms public domain means something along the lines of "anyone may do anything whatever s/he wishes with it". That includes re-licensing within some derivative work. So you'll be fine using graphics from a public domain source.

Mind that a creative common's license or gpl is not public domain.

Regards,
pm
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by michael blunck »

andythenorth wrote:I am creating a grf which I would like to release under some version of the GNU GPL. However, I am planning to reuse artwork from authors who have stated (publicly and clearly) that the artwork I wish to use is in the public domain. [...]
You don´t seem to understand the term "public domain".

- Original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time automatically.

- All copyrights have a finite term: either the work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year (whichever is later), or the last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year. (US copyright law is different insofar that in the US unpublished works were not covered by the Federal Copyright Act before 1978, and the US only adopted the Berne Convention in 1988, see there.). Only if copyright has thus expired, works are in the "public domain".

- By law, some types of works may be ineligible for copyright and enter the public domain upon publication, e.g. US government material.

- Same is true for every published work (abstract theories, data collections, ...) which wouldn´t be copyrightable per se.

- In general, it´s not possible to "abandon" copyright from the outset, i.e. putting a piece of work into the public domain without a proper legal construction. The Berne Convention (and the US Berne Convention Implementation Act) don´t know that term at all. Especially, it´s not explained whether authors have the right to dedicate their work to the public domain at all, or under what special conditions this may work. Moreover, in US law, there exists no unlimited right to dedicate work to the public domain.

IMO, "public domain" has to be restricted to the aforementioned special cases (check out Wikipedia material and learn about the special reason why those are in "public domain"), but every other application needs a special "public domain" license (e.g. GPL et al.). If this doesn´t exist for a piece of copyrighted material, it´s not in the public domain.

regards
Michael
Image
User avatar
Korenn
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1735
Joined: 26 Mar 2004 01:27
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by Korenn »

If it has been clearly stated that a released work may be freely used in whatever form by everyone, that is also a license. Just because it doesn't stretch 20 pages of documentation doesn't mean it's not a license :D

andythenorth, you should be fine.
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by michael blunck »

Korenn wrote:If it has been clearly stated that a released work may be freely used in whatever form by everyone, that is also a license. Just because it doesn't stretch 20 pages of documentation doesn't mean it's not a license :D
Even the link given by Andy disputes this:
gnu.org wrote:Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed.
I.e. being in the "public domain" has nothing to do with any license. I thought I clarified this point?

regards
Michae
Image
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by andythenorth »

michael blunck wrote:
andythenorth wrote:I am creating a grf which I would like to release under some version of the GNU GPL. However, I am planning to reuse artwork from authors who have stated (publicly and clearly) that the artwork I wish to use is in the public domain. [...]
You don´t seem to understand the term "public domain".
You're quite right, I don't. That's why I'm asking ;)

I am concerned that 'public domain' is a term applied by authors to their work without an informed understanding of what it means. I am also concerned that there may be various and incompatible understandings / definitions of the term. Your information has been helpful.

The practical problem I have (based on previous experience, and careful reading of the GPL) is:
- I wish to include a third party work as a component of a larger work which I wish to make available under the GPL...
- ...to do this I must ensure that I have appropriate rights to the third party work. These rights must be both clearly defined, and compatible with the GPL...
- ...however if a third party places an item 'in the public domain', the licensing is unclear, therefore this should be incompatible with GPL.

However the GNU website states very clearly that 'public domain' is compatible with GPL. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html The issue is whether an author can legally apply 'public domain' to their work.

Licensing questions are prone to become academic debates, which descend into flame wars. I should like to avoid this. In this instance I have three possible solutions:
1. Take the GNU interpretation at face value and use the GPL license.
2. Ask the author for permission to use the work under GPL.
3. Combination of both of the above: take the GNU at face value and ask the author to clarify their understanding of public domain.

Michael - if an author can't 'give up' copyright without a legal framework to do so, then I am inclined to agree with the points you have made, and option 1 is ruled out.
Option 3 is complicated and probably equally as unworkable as option 1. Therefore I shall pursue option 2.

If 'public domain' is in fact a useless term (is it?), it would be very useful if there was wider understanding of that in the community - there are multiple authors releasing their work into 'the public domain' in a well intentioned way, that leaves me unable to then make use of their work.

cheers,

Andy
User avatar
planetmaker
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 9432
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:44
Location: Sol d

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by planetmaker »

andythenorth wrote: Michael - if an author can't 'give up' copyright without a legal framework to do so, then I am inclined to agree with the points you have made, and option 1 is ruled out.

If 'public domain' is in fact a useless term (is it?), it would be very useful if there was wider understanding of that in the community - there are multiple authors releasing their work into 'the public domain' in a well intentioned way, that leaves me unable to then make use of their work.
There are legislations which don't know the term 'public domain', e.g. the German one. There the copyright cannot be given away by an author; work can only be licensed. Instead the author has to state what is allowed, e.g. explicitly state that you may use, reuse and distribute the work with or without acknowledgement with or without commercial purposes and without any restriction on the intended use and that no liability and fitness of the work is given for any purpose.

Only such statement makes the intention clear without reference to any word of dubious legal understanding - like public domain.

In case of doubt it's always safe to contact the author of a piece of work.

Regards,
pm
DaleStan
TTDPatch Developer
TTDPatch Developer
Posts: 10285
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 03:06
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by DaleStan »

michael blunck wrote:You don´t seem to understand the term "public domain".
No, it is you who don't understand public domain.
michael blunck wrote:- In general, it´s not possible to "abandon" copyright from the outset, i.e. putting a piece of work into the public domain without a proper legal construction.
"I hereby place this work into the public domain" is sufficient legal construction, at least in the US. And if it's not possible to abandon copyright, how exactly does "some types of works may be ineligible for copyright and enter the public domain upon publication" happen?
michael blunck wrote:special "public domain" license (e.g. GPL et al.).
WHERE THE FLYING FSCK DO YOU GET THAT FROM? Since when is the GPL public domain?
andythenorth wrote:I am concerned that 'public domain' is a term applied by authors to their work without an informed understanding of what it means.
Public domain means that no rights are reserved by the copyright holder. The rights to use, reproduce, distribute (with or without attribution), modify, and distribute modified copies (again with or without attribution), for any purpose, are irrevocably granted to everyone who receives a copy of the work, without condition.

In the case of performance or display peices, the right to perform/display (still with or without attribution), for any purpose, is also irrevocably granted, without condition.

The right to do anything else that may have slipped my mind, for any purpose, is also irrevocably granted, without condition.
To get a good answer, ask a Smart Question. Similarly, if you want a bug fixed, write a Useful Bug Report. No TTDPatch crashlog? Then follow directions.
Projects: NFORenum (download) | PlaneSet (Website) | grfcodec (download) | grfdebug.log parser
User avatar
planetmaker
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 9432
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:44
Location: Sol d

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by planetmaker »

DaleStan wrote:"I hereby place this work into the public domain" is sufficient legal construction, at least in the US. And if it's not possible to abandon copyright, how exactly does "some types of works may be ineligible for copyright and enter the public domain upon publication" happen?
Unfortunately this sentence is not everywhere sufficient as the term "public domain" is only in the US a legal term and e.g. not recoginzed by German courts. A license should be as explicit to make clear the author's intend under more than US legislation. That's why I wrote in my last post here a definition of "public domain" which holds under more than merely US law; the one given by you in the last paragraph is just as fine, but it needs to be explicit.

That said,I can only support your move to make crystal clear the differences between GPL, CC licenses and public domain.
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by michael blunck »

DaleStan wrote:
michael blunck wrote:special "public domain" license (e.g. GPL et al.).
WHERE THE FLYING FSCK DO YOU GET THAT FROM? Since when is the GPL public domain?
I didn´t write "public domain" but ""public domain"". But granted, to avoid confusion, I should have written ""public domain" or other "free" licenses" to make my point more clear. 8)


The general problem seems to be the correct understanding of the term "public domain".

1. In fact, international copyright law (i.e. based on the Berne Convention), doesn´t know a construct like the US´s "public domain". In international copyright law, works are either copyrightable (and thus such a work will be copyrighted automatically when being released) or they´re not (by various reasons). And only when a copyrighted work has expired, it´ll be free for being used by everyone, aka being in the "public domain".

2. In addition, most of the Berne Convention´s membership states don´t use the term "public domain" in their national legislation either. And because copyright under the Berne Convention and/or the signee states isn´t transferable at all (see e.g. German UrhG §29), hence a "renouncement" of copyright, especially in favour of that unknown "public domain", isn´t possible. O/c, granting licences is always possible. But this is a different problem and has nothing to do with the question at hand (see original post).

3. In contrast, in the US, the term "public domain" is a legal term which is used synonymously for "non-copyrighted" and/or "non-copyrightable". This legal construct dates back from US copyright law before joining the Berne Convention (1988) and applies to the fact that under national US copyright law, works w/o an explicit copyright statement were not enjoying copyright protection at all.

Now, for a work being "non-copyrightable" isn´t much of a problem in the end, either in US law or in legislation of other membership states. E.g., in US copyright law, see USC §105 (17), all works created by the US government (but not those of US states) are released into the "public domain", and German UrhG does the same in §5 (1), explicitly stating that "laws, decrees, official enactments and declarations, as well as adjudications and official guidelines for adjudications don´t fall under copyright protection", i.e. are "non-copyrightable" by law and thus may be regarded as being in the "public domain".

(There are sublties though. Firstly, those works would be "non-copyrighted" in the US, but "non-copyrightable" in other member states, and secondly, US governmental works would be "public domain" only inside the US, but not abroad.)

O/c, this kind of being "public domain" doesn´t address the problem at hand.


The only remaining question is, if, in the US, there are "non-copyrighted" works from the outset (there are o/c non-copyrighted works because of copyright expiration), i.e. whether it´s possible to renounce copyright under US law.

The US Wikipedia has some interesting text with regards to that problem (US law):
Wikipedia wrote:Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of common law, rather than statute. (Alternatively, because copyright has traditionally been seen as a valuable right, one which required registration to achieve, it would not have made sense to contemplate someone abandoning it in 1976 and 1988.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Copyright

Although there is support in the statutes for allowing work to be dedicated to the public domain, there cannot be an unlimited right to dedicate work to the public domain because of a quirk of U.S. copyright law which grants the author of a work the right to cancel "the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright" thirty-five years later, unless the work was originally a work for hire.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_dom ... yright_Act
@planetmaker
You´re right.

regards
Michael
Image
Moriarty
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1395
Joined: 12 Jun 2004 00:37
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by Moriarty »

michael blunck wrote:And because copyright under the Berne Convention and/or the signee states isn´t transferable at all (see e.g. German UrhG §29), hence a "renouncement" of copyright, especially in favour of that unknown "public domain", isn´t possible. O/c, granting licences is always possible. But this is a different problem and has nothing to do with the question at hand (see original post).
That's just crazy talk. If it wasn't transferable, then how can music companies own music made by someone else? How can company A buy out company B (and all their assets?)? How can I sell my book to a publisher and have nothing more to do with it?
All copyrights have a finite term: either the work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year (whichever is later), or the last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year.
You neglect to point out that this is only true for whatever country you wrote it for. It's certainly not the case in the UK (50 years here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... protection )



Frankly, public domain is simple IMHO - You can do what you want with it. It's pretty clear what's meant when someone says they're putting stuff in PD. I know I don't believe in stupidly long copyright terms so I put bunches of stuff into the PD. People who do too much lawyering always cause more problems than they solve. :-(
User avatar
planetmaker
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 9432
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:44
Location: Sol d

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by planetmaker »

Moriarty wrote:
michael blunck wrote:And because copyright under the Berne Convention and/or the signee states isn´t transferable at all (see e.g. German UrhG §29), hence a "renouncement" of copyright, especially in favour of that unknown "public domain", isn´t possible. O/c, granting licences is always possible. But this is a different problem and has nothing to do with the question at hand (see original post).
That's just crazy talk. If it wasn't transferable, then how can music companies own music made by someone else? How can company A buy out company B (and all their assets?)? How can I sell my book to a publisher and have nothing more to do with it?
There's a difference between granting exclusive rights and being the copyright holder.
Moriarty wrote:
All copyrights have a finite term: either the work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year (whichever is later), or the last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year.
You neglect to point out that this is only true for whatever country you wrote it for. It's certainly not the case in the UK (50 years here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... protection )
That said, this game is younger than 50 years, so any copyright still holds.

Also: a license IS a legal statement (and only that!) - so you should make it clear within the light of the law - not some perceived "general understanding".
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by michael blunck »

planetmaker wrote:[...] a license IS a legal statement (and only that!) - so you should make it clear within the light of the law - not some perceived "general understanding".
We already had a lot of faulty copyright discussions on this forums. Just read back. Main problem is that people refuse to read (the law) but instead like to reiterate their own misconceptions.

regards
Michael
Image
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by andythenorth »

Moriarty wrote: I know I don't believe in stupidly long copyright terms so I put bunches of stuff into the PD.(
Hi Moriarty, I know many people find licensing issues boring. So do I. That's why I use the GPL. It's far and away the simplest way to release anything involving code (like a newgrf file). GPL makes the rights situtation absolutely clear, it's legal, and guarantees that other people can use your work (more or less freely - as long as they comply with the GPL).

Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to use your public domain work (if I needed to) in a GPL project. :( It should, because Public Domain is a recognised legal term under the Berne copyright convention. However there are just too many complications around national law etc etc.

cheers,

Andy
Last edited by andythenorth on 05 Dec 2008 21:18, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by andythenorth »

michael blunck wrote:We already had a lot of faulty copyright discussions on this forums. Just read back. Main problem is that people refuse to read (the law) but instead like to reiterate their own misconceptions.
Michael
Such discussions are rather boring, but I am hopeful that the community might get it's head around the best ways to go about licensing graphics. If we had a simple solution that most people followed, that would be better. There does seem to be a trend of releasing grfs under GPL which is a positive sign (because I believe GPL is the best of the licenses I've compared).

Because I believe GPL is best, there is no way I am compiling other people's work into any grf file if they don't have a very clear license situation on their work. That's not because I'm worried about getting into legal trouble (really really really unlikely), it's because these things need to be done right. If I license my work right, other people can reuse and modify it in many useful and fun ways.

Problem: my graphics released through my site http://www.tt-foundry.com/ are not clearly licensed, so I need to clean my own house up as soon as possible :roll: .

Can I simply release them under the GPL? It's fine for grf files, but I believe it's not really idea for standalone graphics? (EDIT) GNU site says it's fine. So I'll update my site soon.

Also, GNU have a definition of Public Domain for those who are interested: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categorie ... inSoftware

cheers,

Andy
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by michael blunck »

andythenorth wrote: [...] Problem: my graphics released through my site http://www.tt-foundry.com/ are not clearly licensed [...] Can I simply release them under the GPL? It's fine for grf files, but I believe it's not really idea for standalone graphics?
This has been discussed intensively.
GNU wrote:Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, anything written down is automatically copyrighted. This includes programs. Therefore, if you want a program you have written to be in the public domain, you must take some legal steps to disclaim the copyright on it; otherwise, the program is copyrighted.
Hear, hear!

Since the US signed the Berne Convention, there should be no "public domain" works in the US either. Well, it´s not that clear in reality ...

Nevertheless, they agree that you´ll need a license.

regards
Michael
Image
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by andythenorth »

michael blunck wrote:
andythenorth wrote: Can I simply release them under the GPL? It's fine for grf files, but I believe it's not really idea for standalone graphics?
This has been discussed intensively.
Quite right - I should know better, I was part of that discussion the first time round. My sprites are now released under GPL (both v2 and v3). I have updated my site[*]. All my future sprites and compiled grf files will also be released under GPL unless an even more appropriate license becomes available.

I would really urge any artist or coder to use a GPL license if they want to make their work generally available for re-use or modification by the community.

[*]For anyone who downloaded sprites from my site prior to 5th December 2008 21.37 GMT: previous terms apply ('free for use in OpenTTD or TTD Patch - with attribution' , i.e. you do not need to apply the GPL to your work.

cheers,

Andy
Moriarty
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1395
Joined: 12 Jun 2004 00:37
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by Moriarty »

planetmaker wrote:
Moriarty wrote:That's just crazy talk. If it wasn't transferable, then how can music companies own music made by someone else? How can company A buy out company B (and all their assets?)? How can I sell my book to a publisher and have nothing more to do with it?
There's a difference between granting exclusive rights and being the copyright holder.
A few seconds with google:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html (USA):
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-owne ... create.htm (UK)
In order to be legally effective, an agreement about transfer of ownership of copyright has to be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the transferor.
That's just two countries. I'm too lazy to search for the other 200.

Could folks please do research before posting on this topic. Especially when it's already stupidly convoluted anyway.
PhilSophus
Chairman
Chairman
Posts: 776
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 12:08
Location: Germany

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by PhilSophus »

Moriarty wrote: That's just two countries. I'm too lazy to search for the other 200.

Could folks please do research before posting on this topic. Especially when it's already stupidly convoluted anyway.
Michael was explicitly referring to the international Berne Convention and to German law. So, to disprove him, citing US and UK national laws will not do. I'm pretty sure the text of the Berne Convention can be found in English to check, whether he's right.

I don't know which one takes precedence if the national and international law disagree (I wouldn't be too astonished, if they did). A quick look at the Berne Convention (§5) reveals that the protection is for all countries except the originating country. So, national laws may indeed differ.

As for German law, Michael gave the source (UrhG §29). It clearly states that certain rights of being the originator are only transferable to the inheritor in case of death, while some rights of usage are freely transferable. You either have to believe Michael and me that the cited law indeed does say that or have to learn German to check.

BTW, I just checked and indeed the Berne Convention also contains said distinction in §6bis (markup by me):
(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
And since there was some dispute about the protection period: The Berne Convention indeed only states 50 years after the death of the originator.

Maybe, this forum should get a copyright law section as these discussions are astonishingly long-lived here :wink:


Edit: For your reference: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Last edited by PhilSophus on 06 Dec 2008 15:38, edited 1 time in total.
"The bigger the island of our knowledge, the longer the shore of our ignorance" - John A. Wheeler, Physicist, 1911-2008
User avatar
planetmaker
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 9432
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:44
Location: Sol d

Re: GPL / Public Domain clarification

Post by planetmaker »

Moriarty wrote:That's just two countries. I'm too lazy to search for the other 200.
If you wouldn't be THAT lazy, you'd easily see that law is much more diverse than US or UK law. So what's your point? Neither law is e.g. applicable to me where I live.
Post Reply

Return to “Graphics Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests