 Und John hält jetzt einen Vortrag darüber zum Thema Grundlagen, Urheberrecht, Schwerpunkt, Creative Commons. This is John's Talk about Creative Commons, copyright licenses, I'm not going to say much more and wish you a pleasant talk. This is the translation of Felix Vidi, Moritz SZ, and Iconi. Please feel free to give us comments on c3lingo.org and at the hashtag C3T. So, welcome to everyone. I will not be talking about the EU copyright reform and I can't really hear it anymore. I would like to talk to you about copyright, mostly about images and how you can use Creative Commons licenses. I need to be quick because I will only have 15 minutes and some Q&A and it's quite ambitious. So, I have two parts. First copyright as seen by photographers and the second part Creative Commons licenses in practice. Everyone seems to have heard about it before. Today we will be talking about these two things up there. Copyright and closely related rights. Basics of copyright as seen by photographers. We will be talking about the copyright of the motif that you have taken a photo of and of the photo that you took. First, the rights of photographed objects. What can I photograph without asking? When do I have to ask specifically for permission? And then who do I ask for this permission? So, what can I do, what can I take a photo of without asking? Not everything that we can take a photo of is subject to copyright. For example, this, this is the famous ape selfie, the monkey, the ape that has taken a picture of himself. He is not able to hold a copyright. So, the animals can take photos of themselves as much as they like and they cannot sue me for the copyright. And they can obviously take photos of landscapes and not be subject to copyright on that image. So, so, as long as there is no one seen in the image, we need to fix this little thing live. There we go but here we start with the small print already as you can see. Was ist denn los? Verrückt. Wir haben mein Vorbild verloren, aber wir werden es manageieren. Hier sind wir. Ich kann die Landschaften nehmen, solange es keine Menschen oder Räume gibt. Und in Deutschland kann ich noch die Landschaften nehmen, egal wer die Landschaft oder die Objekte hat. Aber das könnte in der Zukunft ändern. Wir werden das später machen. Jetzt wird es ein bisschen langer. Old and works in the public domain can be freely photographed as your own work. You can also take a picture of this old piece of art of the Notre Dame. However, everything beyond that is complicated. It gets more complicated. Lots of things can be protected by copyright. It needs only three things. It needs just one person to bring something new in a possible form. For example, this house. You would think it is not something particularly complicated to do. However, usually the architect has a copyright on this concept of a house. Another thing that has recently become a problem is logos and trademarks. Usually or in the past it has not been a problem. However, by now, courts have decided that even by using logos you need to be considering the copyright. This is a rough overview of the types of works that exist. This is not comprehensive. There might be types of works that no one has thought of before. And all of those are also from the start covered by the copyright law in Germany. And that is good. Apart from that, there is something called the German Leistungsschutzrechte. Leistungsschutzrechte nennen wir auch Verwandteschutzrechte, weil sie sehr ähnlich sind wie das Urheberrechte. These are related rights to copyrights and they relate to the usage of words. These lie with the companies that support services or provide services related to the exploitation of this work. For example, production companies, record companies, or publishers. Are parts of works able to be copyrighted? Yes, as long as the particular part is sufficiently individual. And usually it is. For example, if the first photo on the left side is copyrighted, then the picture on the right hand side is also copyrighted. So, you cannot evade copyright in this way. What does copyright mean? It means all rights are protected. Everything that you can have as copyright, as a right, is protected by the copyright. And everything I'm talking about now is immediately copyrighted, is immediately covered by copyright. Everything quite simple and nice to cover the creators of the work. But naturally, creators need to cover the public. Creators need to respect the needs of the common domain, the public. So, whoever releases works into the public domain or who exposes them to the public needs to be aware that some of these rights might be limited. So, all the works that are, for example, exposed or shown in public, they need to be seen or to be able to be seen by the public. And that's why these limits to copyright exist. There's a very important right to cite. There's a law that says that you can talk about other people's works in your own works. But that only means that you can talk about it but not copy somebody else's work. It's about covering the contents of another works. But it's supposed to be limited to only the amount of work you need. There's another work. For example, on this Congress, you're able to protect certain parts. For example, you're able to take pictures of certain things put up at the Congress. But the courts changed the laws to be more strict. So, there's a law that says that it only counts if it doesn't have a certain relation to the main thing. And it's a very problematic law because when you look at Congress, you could say that each work is part of the entire image. For example, there's a concert hall in Berlin. Hold on. So, the concert hall is in Berlin. It's a very old building, so the creator is already dead. But these works on the walls are newer works. So, there's a question if the previous rule applies to it or not. Because it's still important for the work. So, the new law makes it more difficult to judge that. So, there's an ... There's a important law about daily events. But that's only restricted to people who are doing ... Live-Events, like blogs and media, like TV. But the restriction is that it still needs to be a new, actual, up-to-date thing. A few days after, it's still okay, but weeks or months after that, it gets more difficult. You can't just cover it easily. And that's made more difficult by the Internet because posts stay up on the Internet for multiple months. So, it's limited by time. There's another law called panoramic freedom. So, in Germany, you're able to take pictures from the street level. So, you're able to cover multiple works, like statues and plastics, when you're taking pictures of them from the public street areas. But just from the street level, you can't climb up with a ladder, a hold of a selfie stick. Just for the range a human can reach with a camera. For example, taking a picture of the 100-Water-Haus, Wunderwasser-Haus. In Austria, it's different. You can take pictures from the first level as well. But you can't do that in Germany. There's a quiz question now. The federal court in Berlin doesn't count as a panoramic view, but that law doesn't apply since it's the inner space, not the outer space. So, has anyone been alive since the government was covered? So, does it count as panoramic freedom? No, it hasn't since. It needs to be a permanent thing that's applied. But the government was only there for two weeks, so it doesn't count as permanent. So, it doesn't fall under that law. That's why you can't see it on Wikipedia, when you looked up. Wikipedia is always very confirmed to the rights. So, it's not even linked there. So, what he's doing currently is only half legal, because normally I can't show it to you. Because it's a temporary work. Now, what about the mouth from the Aeda ships? You can certainly argue about that. Is it something that's permanently applied, since ships move? But courts say that it's permanently there. It might move, but it's still always publicly available. Another example is ads on buses. You're able to take photos of them, even though it's moving, because it's in public space. Permanently viewable. Not to forget. That's something they like to forget. You still need to mention architects and artists of the works portrayed. I just wanted to mention that. So, works from official works. You still need to mention sources, but you can't change it. So, when you talk about the Open Knowledge Foundation, about the topic of official workpieces, then they always tend to get scared, because you can't take a part of that out of these official documents. It has to be the entire document. Open data doesn't work that way, and that's difficult. So, we at Wikimedia Germany try and have this changed. These are the restrictions. Now, sometimes there is no governed allowing to take this photo. If what I do reaches an official audience or a public audience, the way in which it does this is entirely non-important. So, there is a definition within that public is everything that isn't directly connected to me, counts as public. If you all wear my ex-colleagues or my previous school buddies, then this wouldn't be a public event, than we would be a closed thing. This doesn't have to be a big number of people. A big family party can still be not public, but in this instance, these four people would also be a public instance. So, justification is, whenever you do a small party and you want to stay in non-public rooms, then you would have to bring people who are not closely related to you. So, something that doesn't have a password in the Internet is always a public scene. But the UGH doesn't view it as critical when you download copies from a third server, because that's not a public source, than that isn't considered public as. It is more difficult to do this in the web. If something goes wrong, who is responsible? Basically everyone who was with this. Everything always is governed in favor of the publisher. He or she can go towards everyone who took part. So in the instance of this picture, the one who took this picture is really the one who is liable. The ones who distributed it aren't really responsible, because if not for this one person, it wouldn't have been published. Well, who is the sorcerer? Who is the one who did this? Companies can't really be creators. Companies can only be the ones holding the copyright for this. So, it has to be a human person who is the creator. It has to be the person who actually took this photo. Sometimes, though, it's a bit more difficult. These are some examples. These are all creators. So like, components, sculpturists and choreographers. They are all creators. There are more kinds of creators, but these are just some examples. You do not have to register anywhere. You do not have to state copyright anywhere. Wenn multiple people had the rights to this picture, then 70 years after the last person of this group died, the copyrights apply. Whenever this runs out, this copyright law runs out, it can be used by everyone and by the public. This is very similar with related rights and copyrights. What gets left out mostly is copyrights in music and copyrights in classical music. The work itself is openly available, but recordings of the work itself are mostly not publicly available. You can't link old music or use old music in that way, because you always have to think about not the ones who wrote the music, but the ones who composed it. No, the other way around. You always have to think who is a creator and who is a secondary creator. Es ist klar, dass man, wer das Projekt betrifft, dass man in diesem Projekt aktiv ist und dass man in dem Prozess sein kann. Man hat keine Ahnung, man muss nur in dem Prozess sein. Man ist so intertwined, dass man sich nicht distinguieren kann. Es ist nicht wirklich copyrights. Es gab eine Lawcase in diesem Projekt, in der jemand den Bild der Maus, und jemand hat es ein bisschen geändert. Er hat einfach nur die Maus und die Nose geändert. Der Law hat gesagt, dass nur derjenige, der die Maus original ist, der Copyright-Holder. Das ist auch der Fall mit Filmen. Es ist meistens eine Kopierreiholderschaft, wie viele Menschen in diesem Prozess. Alle werden eine Kopierreiholder, die in any way participated. Vielleicht sind es Produktproduzern, und Akten, und die Leute, die das Licht gemacht haben. Nur wenn die letzten Personen dies waren, dann beginnt die 70-jährige Kopierreiholderschaft. Das passiert, wenn alles, was sie so genannt haben, ist copyrightclaimed. Das bedeutet, dass mit Movies, die Kopierreiholder, nur die Menschen, die die ganze Zeit mit den shareholders sind, eine unheimliche Entscheidung. Das, was ich angedeutet habe, ist ein Sonderfall. Es gibt auch die Reihen der eigenen Bilder. Das ist die Sons-to-see-File. Sons-to-see-File, die die Sons-to-see-File gemacht haben. Dann sind die non-profit, die die Organisation, die Kopierreise über dieses Haus claimt. Und dieser, dieser Korrektur, hat gesagt, dass sie das tun können, als sie, dass sie eigentlich, obwohl sie nicht investiert haben, sie investiert haben in diesem Kassel und aus dieser Rolle von Ownerschaft kann sie die Stopping dieser Bilder demanden. Es ist nicht wirklich wichtig, wer die Dinge in der Bilder gelangt. Es ist nicht wirklich wichtig, meistens, aber ich hoffe, dass es so bleibt, dass du, wenn du es so adjustierst, dass du keine Bilder mehr nehmen könntest, immer in irgendeiner Weise unruhig zu sein. Also, dieses Kassel ist nur eine Art exception für diese Rolle, eine spezielle Sache. Ich hoffe, dass das nicht der Zukunft ist. Ich hoffe wirklich, dass Ownerschaft nicht wirklich wichtig ist. Also, was ist mit meinen eigenen Bilder? In diesem Fall ist es das selbe, nur der andere Weg. Wann bin ich mit anderen, wenn ich im gleichen Boot sitze? Wenn die Bilder eine artistisch-validable Bilder sind, oder eine Art, dann habe ich zumindest immer die Reise für diese Bilder. Zum Beispiel, wenn ich die Reise für alle Bilder habe, dann habe ich die Reise für diese Bilder. Ich würde das nicht tun. Also, um mit allen Reisen zu beginnen, mit mir, das ist toll, ich bin glücklich. In der Theorie, das könnte nicht sein, aber was kann ich tun? Wenn ich die Copyright habe, dann kann ich die Reise geben, um euch und euch und euch die Reise zu reproduzieren. Oder um es zu geben unter Standard-Licenzen, ich kann die Reise selbst reproduzieren, um es zu ändern, um es zu destruieren, oder um nichts zu tun. Aber, wenn andere Leute meine Reise infringen, dann kann ich sie zu meinen Reisen holen. Ich kann sie tun, um sie zu stoppen, um meine Reise zu reproduzieren. Ich kann sie tun, für die Kompensation der Damage. Ich kann die Polizei alerten. In der Praxis hat das aber technisch ein Crime, obwohl es in der Praxis keine Relevanz gibt. Und, wenn es eine wirklich commerciale Piracy war, die DVDs, große Skalausgabe, das ist so, dass die Leute gewähren lassen, ist auch meine Entscheidung. Das wird von der Polizei besucht, aber es würde auch nicht sein. Und auch, dass ich einfach alles veröffentlicht habe. Also, ich habe die Reise zur ersten Publikation. Und ich habe auch die Reise, in Alienable, als Kreator der Reise zu sein. Ich kann auch, ich habe auch die Reise, um nicht zu werden, oder nicht zu werden, als Kreator der Reise. Und ich habe auch die Protektion extremer Modifikation der Deformation der Arbeit. Also, wenn meine Reise verändert ist, zu einem extremen Degree, das auf meine Reise befindet, in Japan, man kann nicht die Arbeit ändern. In Deutschland, die Limitations sind, ein bisschen mehr flexibel. Das ist generell everything that I can do, in terms of civil rights, as the creator in Germany. And I also have all the rights to monetization of my work. I can reproduce my work, I can publish it, I can show it publicly, in all sorts of ways. Those are all my rights. So, my legal position is excellent. So, when I'm sitting with everyone else, my other co-creators in one boat, that is the case, when others have, as I said before, worked together with me, or contributed to the creation of the photos. With photos, it's a little bit more difficult to reproduce, or to retrace. However, that is usually the case, when it's a very constructed photo with lots of lighting, lots of organized imagery, and settings of frames. It is also the case, if I take pictures of the works of others, since that is part of the picture, and I couldn't have created the picture without that. That is the same sort of constellation, then we have to decide together. This part has already been talked about, this noon, so I won't go into this anymore. If I photograph people who are recognizable, then I need their permission too, to reproduce the picture. What else? We'll get to this later. Wikimedia Commons is a big media archive, from which all of the pictures used in Wikipedia are used. People upload pictures to Wikimedia, and wait for them to be used in Wikipedia. Some of these are uploaded with the intention, that people accidentally use them, and then can be built for it. There's no real solution to this yet. It happens once in a while, there's a few hundred of these cases, and we're working to make that work better. So now we're covering part two, these licenses as tools. So these licenses are special, since they allow it to multiple people at once, that's not restricted to Wikimedia projects. So something I want to repeat, what is open content, what are creative Commons, what modules and what tools are there to use. So what is open content? There's a definition from the 90's. The material is open. If it's being, if it's allowed to be used, studied, multiplied without special permission. That might sound a little strange, it's from the area of free software. So part two, studying it is a little useless, since you can take a look at pictures anyways. But it has been taking it into account, since most of the time, you can't take a look at code easily, since it's compiled. They just started, when companies started to keep the code to themselves. So that's why number two, studying the work is amended. So that's wonderful. So when all of these apply, it's open content, and that's especially tricky. So, me as someone who doesn't have any experience, has to be able to use it. So that's where the problem lies. So, there's a special case with time and area restrictions, since, for example with movies, there are different rights, regarding which country you watch a movie in. So with these rules, normal people who don't know about laws, struggle to work with that. For example, if you need to calculate how long you're able to use a work. So that's what practically and without any risk means. So that's why it's a special thing. It's not about very specific license contracts. It's about applying to the masses, to everybody without special knowledge needed beforehand. So there's something. The open definition from the Open Knowledge Foundation, it has a similar definition, as mentioned previously, accessing it, using it, modifying and sharing. So, that's a different definition. So, what kind of open content is there? I found this photo. Open knowledge, open education, open health. Not everything of that is open content in that sense. But I really like that, since it got broader quickly. So here's an example, if you're translating a text in a blog, you found it, you're recording it and sharing it via social media. So normally you would need to talk to multiple lawyers to get the contracts to do all of that. But in order to make this possible with all this overhead of open content exists, it's just a constructed example. But open content should allow that. A chain of licenses as is the case with normal business, wouldn't be possible without open content or in a harder way, since open content allows that easily. For example, without these rules about open content, Wikipedia wouldn't be imaginable. So every time you look up on Wikipedia, you're now able to remember that it's just possible, because of these open media rules, open content rules. So what rules are there for me to use? So there are CC-Lenses, that's one tool, there are multiple ones. The main principle is that I'm allowing everyone not limited to writes, not limited to area or time before publishing the work. So there can be many restrictions, like mentioning the original creator. So there are some exceptions you can add. But that's a general idea. So, that was a general right. Now I'm coming to more specific writes. It's pretty simple, but I'm just mentioning it to explain the principle. So there are multiple licenses, for example, data licenses, for example one by the government of Germany, which wasn't very successful, that's all right. So what is Creative Commons? It's an organization that created that thought of all these things. It's not an alternate copyright, as it is the main idea of. It's just some things that are on the base of copyright law. Differenzierte Lizenzverträge, die aber standardisiert sind, woran wir sind, und das ist ein kleiner Druck, als lesen müssen. Das kann für alle, ohne alle zu reden, das ist ein kleiner Druck, jedes Mal. So all of them with different restrictions, just the top two calling names to count as open content. All the others are too restrictive to count as open content. So what are the modules? Every single license contains the mentioning module, which means that the original creator needs to be named, because that's the sort of currency with creative works. So that's what the reputation depends on. It's not about the money, it's about calling the name. So you need to call the name every time, say which license it is, name the title of the work and the as long as possible add links and sources to find out where it was originally published. So how does this need to happen? It always depends on the media. So for example in the film it can be in the in the end in books it can be in the image sources list in the main as long as it's able to be found easily. So the other thing for open content, is share a like. It allows the publication of modifications of the original work, which you need to still publish under the same license. So this is supposed to affect that you can not take works as your own once you're editing them. Most of the community projects have this condition. It's to make sure things stay free. There's another module called non-commercial which means you're not open content anymore. It would mean that you're not allowed to use it commercially. But if you do, you need to ask me. It's not allowed for open content because that's a gray area most of the time. The open content effect is lost by that because it can often be a troublesome legal situation. Well, the differences between these topics are very fluid. For example with a YouTube video that's if you use it in another video in a sample for example a sample of that that could be also viewed as a commercial application so non-copyright licenses would inflict that. This is a brochure that we've done once we talked about the problematics of this and that brochure. The last module is no editing. You can basically figure out yourself. This is also called no derivatives. So what does no editing mean? Well an editing always occurs when it gets transformed, when it gets translated, when it gets rearranged, whatever because for example editing a photo or cutting a photo into other sizes then it's also an infringement of that rule. This isn't even open copyright usable. For all of these modules you always have to state the original creator. You should always consider you should always only constrict yourself to regulations you can enforce yourself to. You cannot say, if you publish something that's going to be big don't say you have to ask me every time as you cannot do that yourself. So how is this used? How much time do I have left? 5 min, 7 min, he was just informed. With CC licenses there is a speciality. There are many different ways of showing this. There is a human readable, a machine readable and a jurisdictionally readable version. So there is a document for this and this is one standard that I have had to read once as is just basic. And this is the RDFA version of this license. So this is basically for browsers or for scripts so that they can filter through these license types as well. How does licensing this work? There are these texts which I just showed. You basically publish this. You write another article underneath it and say it should be published with that license. So immediately when you read this document and immediately when you read that sentence you basically start to stick to these rules. So only when this allowance is needed does this apply. So if you're allowed to use this as citation, then these CC licenses, these Creative Commons licenses aren't even necessary. So what if I changed my mind? I made a CC license which I can't really fulfill, which I don't really want to fulfill. I would really just want to publish this for example under a Music Licenser or under a Music Publisher who wants full license to this. So you can't redact these licensing. So everyone who has already read this can use this, continue on using this. As soon as someone saw this this is really not reversible anymore. As soon as you published something under Creative Commons you can't give someone exclusive rights over anything. So this is kind of a one-way lane in most cases. You can also remove these license things but people can continue on using this. Just because you changed your website doesn't mean that these people can continue on using it. Wikipedia does it in the same way. Wikipedia is also licensed under Creative Commons. They do this every time for every article. Usually you don't need this, so many people have read it. But these license warnings are always very sensual and always very important. That's important because for the creator themselves they go in contact with these people in that way. So if this gets lost, if this gets changed then you have a problem. In that case it's very bad because these editions are very bad to lose. Because if you do some little mistake that doesn't allow this usage then you have a problem. So in Germany there is this licensed generator of pictures. For example you can upload the URL of that picture and it will immediately spit out a license disclaimer. So there are three different stages of this. Every write is a no write in every user. Every write is applied to the user. These public domain dedications are done under ODC0 or CC0. This for example says to have anything you want with this but don't complain to me about anything. I don't want to hear this. You can do this as well with other licensing methods but with that you can basically exclude yourself from the process of replication. Then there is public domain then there is a tool that aims at making this more accessible. That's public domain mark. This is a reminder of the differences. These license change the legislation and then the other ones don't. We already had this before so I believe I have finished in time. Thank you very much. If you have questions you can ask them. Thanks and now the applause for the speaker. Are there any questions? Hello I'm Sascha. I'd like to ask with the CC0 license does that exist in Germany in this form? If you rebuilt Wikipedia could you do that legally? In Germany CC0 has kind of a problematic situation where in Germany there is a very restricted creator licensing situation. You can't really leave these ownership licensing out. As by law you always have some rights over this. This doesn't work with German law enforcement. You can't just say no I don't have any rights anymore. There's another thing there's something else which is basically just a CC0 license or another CC license without any clauses. It has a very similar effect. It just is a legislating matter. You can't really use CC0 in Germany not 100% fully but probably to like 98%. Thanks for the talk. My question is you said in Germany you can't give up all your rights. So it's not possible that I publish something und someone else cannot claim it under their own license. So licenses can only be given to people by people who have the rights. You can't really apply a CC license to anything you haven't done. If someone else takes your picture and applies a CC license to it, that doesn't work. I've got a point on the question regarding the public and non-public Assemblies. How is it defined if you know someone or not? How close does this contact have to be? That's a bit of a grey zone. Known doesn't have to mean related. Related is entrusted or non-person in that instance. Friends are also where it gets really difficult are like classes in university classes in school where everyone knows the professor but not the professor doesn't know everyone else. Most of this will be acknowledged in legislation. You also have the problem that people can just simply walk into presentations where you can't quite be sure that everyone knows each other and in most university classes that would be non-public as anyone knows the other one in some relation or another. And thanks for the talk. Now imagine I find a photo on Wikipedia that I would like to use on Facebook. It is posted under creative comments by and share alike. Now Wikimedia Commons does have other restrictions on images that are posted there. Could I use it on Facebook? So Facebook has their own user specific clauses where they guarantee that you have all the rights and you can use this picture however you want. That is the legislation between you and Facebook. That Facebook will sue you at some point or that Facebook gets sued because there is a picture on there which shouldn't be there and then Facebook will come directly towards you. Between Facebook a Facebook user and the Facebook corporation that isn't really a big appliance. If you take a picture from Wikipedia and publish it on Facebook then it might be removed from the auto removal system because of copyright laws because it could be that you might get sued from the creator as you made it be saved on these Facebook servers and he might go towards you and say hey you've enabled usage for commercial services but because these social media systems aren't really made to carry over these CC licensing editions if you take pictures with CC Commons then you can add these CC licenses to the picture and attach them to the actual JPEG or PNG whatever and that should be safe. Servi, this is going to be the last question because there's going to be another talk after this. Directly on that you said you could put those CC licenses into the graphic itself. If the picture is non-derivative if the license is non-derivative I can't do that, right? What do I do then? If the graphic stays the same and it doesn't change and you just add it below the picture then that shouldn't change anything just because someone's attached below it basically no one can say my picture got changed if someone attaches something else beneath it so no one really does that it's not a common practice. Once again, hardy applause for the speaker and thanks for listening to the English translation.