"if i use what is in the "public domain" for me, then do i have the rights to re-license the derivative works as cc0"

Sadly no. You can only re-license works with the written permission of the author (or original copyright holder), nobody else can give you that right. My guess is, since you're talking about public domain assets, you don't have that permission.

Furthermore, CC0 page explicitly states:

Unlike the Public Domain Mark, CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world.

The best you can do is to ask the original author to release their works under CC0 too.

To be clear, it's not the countries which recognizes the work as public domain that causes the problem for you (in those countries you should be able to create a derivative work and make that CC0), the issue is the countries which might not, and therefore would require you to have the copyright holder's permission to create derivative works which you don't have.

"but for old books that have passed into the public domain, there is noone who could come after us, correct?"

That depends. Normally works go into public domain after the death of the author, but the time period for that may vary in countries, and some county also allows inheritance of copyright. To be absolutely sure, let's say "120 years after author's death and nobody claiming the right ever since", that surely means public domain everywhere in the word. (In some countries it may became PD sooner, for example 70 years after death in the EU, 120 is the maximum any country uses.)

Cheers,
bzt

"if i use what is in the "public domain" for me, then do i have the rights to re-license the derivative works as cc0"
Yes but only if you make some substantial addition. Then the derivate is under your copyright.

In this particular case, the Madrid Codex (as well as the Dresden and Paris Codex) was created in the 16th century, ca. 500 years ago by unknown artists, plus all the potential copyright holders were butchered by the Spanish back then so you're 100% good.

If you're thinking about using Mayan and Aztec symbols from old codeces, you can safely do derivative works of them and make those CC0, no probs, nobody will come after you.

"if the work i am using to make derivative is in the public domain in the u.s. then it has to be public domain worldwide for me to be able to publish my derivatives under a creative commons license?"

Only if you're about to distribute your work outside of the U.S., otherwise it's enough if you only comply with the U.S. law. But in this case you can relax, these are public domain worldwide for sure.

Cheers,
bzt

"by putting something on the world wide web i am defacto distributing my work world wide, right?"

Not necessarily. You could limit the access by the terms of use or technically too by limiting the IP address for example. Have you ever seen the message "This video is not available in your country" on youtube? But if you impose no restrictions (technical or legal written in the terms of use), then yes.

"i am safe in the u.s. for sure, but i still have doubts about my rights in regards to "world wide" distribution."

Since the book was published in the U.S. and by a U.S. citizen and before 1927 it is public domain in the country of origin for sure, no doubt about that. If that's so, then I can't see what other countries reasoning could be to claim not being PD in their corresponding countries. But I must stress IMHO, I'm not a lawyer, and copyright law is extremely tricky.

Anyway, since the 1914 book is already PD in the country of publication, I believe you won't get into any trouble in other countries either. I'm about 99.999999999% certain of it. Hope this helps.

"i am doubtful that the book was published in afghanistan for instance"

Thankfully that doesn't matter. You are using the version of the book which was published in the U.S. in 1914 as source, and not any other publication or reprint.

Cheers,
bzt

The most relevant part of what surt said should not be left out; "it's not really public domain."

Any time you add extra stipulations to a license, it is no longer that license.

"This is licensed CC-BY. just give me credit. but also, don't resell it" 

Well, not really CC-BY any more, is it?

"GPL: if it's used with other art, that other art must also be GPL, but only if you're using it commercially" 

Well, not really GPL any more, is it?

"Public Domain: Do whatever you want with it, but only within the United States" 

Well, not really Public Domain anymore, is it?

For your own personal uses, I think bzt's assessment is fairly solid. However, since the question is 'what does this mean for OGA?', mmmnot quite as safe: Yes, I know, PD is more like the absence of copyright than it is a copyright license, but the underlying effect is, if it isn't one of the licenses we accept on OGA, and it can't be converted to one of those same licenses, then we can't host it here. Note that I'm not saying "we cannot host Technopheasant's FPS pistols". I'm saying "I am not sure if derivatives of 'Public Domain US Military' can be licensed as CC0 or not." It's possible the answer is "yeah, that's totally fine" but I'm not sure. That's the part we need more information on.

Until we have that additional clarification, I must mark those derivatives as having a licensing issue. Because they may not be safe to use outside the US, and that is not something we expect any of our users to govern.

Again, I agree with bzt on that point. It fell into the PD in 1927. It says "in the USA" but that is referring to the lack of information about other publications in other countries, not that it isn't PD outside the US. That isn't the same as work that is placed into a weird Public-Domain-but-only-in-the-US by the US military. the "in the USA" part of that book's license appears to be saying "did you derive stuff from this book? or a Spanish version of this book?" If it was actually that book and not "Una introducción al estudio de los jeroglíficos mayas por Sylvanus Griswold Morley", then your derivatives are truly from PD.

To get back to the topic of my pistol sprites, then the question is whether or not the submission should be deleted. Fact is, I am a Canadian so if it is a U.S. only thing then I am guessing it would not apply. I would argue that the works are reasonably transformative, at the very least my one handed variants, but if I do not in fact have the right to re-license the work they are based on that is a moot point. A shame, because I like how the black pistols came out a lot.

@Technopeasant: "I am a Canadian so if it is a U.S. only thing then I am guessing it would not apply."

You're lucky, because both countries have signed the Berne Convention (Canada in 1928 and U.S. in 1989). More on the convention:

The Berne Convention requires its parties to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other parties to the convention (known as members of the Berne Union) at least as well as those of its own nationals.

So if those pistols are copyrighted in a way in the U.S., then they must be copyrighted the same way in Canada too. The tricky part is, if they are PD (no explicit copyright was applied) or if the artwork was created before the ratification (luckily neither is true in your case).

"if I do not in fact have the right to re-license the work they are based on that is a moot point."

If I understand you correctly, your CC-BY submission is based on a CC-BY licensed photo on wikipedia, so you have nothing to worry about, you don't have to delete your submission for sure.

About re-licensing, that's a lot harder question than it should be. The CC-BY license section 4a and 4c does not explicitly say you cannot do that, it only says:

4a:

You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License.
...
You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

4c:

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.

So if I'm getting this right, you cannot re-license the unmodified original work, but since it's not CC-BY-SA (share alike), you can license your derivative work in any way you like as long as the original asset author's terms of use kept intact and does not hurt his/her reputation.

As it turns out, even "share alike" means nothing in a collection. If your work is not a derivative, just a collection of other's works, then oddly you can re-license and impose further restrictions, see the Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC precedence case (here Kappa used Dragulis' CC-BY-SA licensed photo and sold it as proprietary, according to the judge, this is OK for collections).

But again, that pistol is licensed under CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA, so has no "share alike" requirement. You must fulfill the attribution requirement in your derivative's copyright notice, but that's all (e.g. you are allowed to re-license under any license that has attribution requirements).

Cheers,
bzt

Oh, then I got the wrong submission sorry. I've just searched for "pistol".

That submission was made using this photo, then it's clear that the original was created in the U.S. and released as public domain, no doubt.

As I've said, I'm 99.99999% certain he can use that in Canada too without trouble, because

• I can't see how could any Canadian authority or person claim copyright over something created in the U.S.
• that would be against the Berne Convention anyway (signed by both the U.S. and Canada)
• he used that particular PD photo as a source, not something else
• both the original photo and Technopeasant's work was explicitly stated to be PD (it's not the case if the copyright has expired or not, or the copyright notice is missing; rather both parties intentionally dedicated their works to be PD right from the start, so being PD is explicit and not questionable).

So IMHO it's perfectly okay (but again, just my personal opinion).

Cheers,
bzt

To reiterate, the question is if the submission can stay on OGA. The question is NOT if the asset can be used by a Canadian/US citizen or not. Assets on OGA must be reasonably safe for Europeans, Australians, UK, et al as well. If images in the Public Domain are still claimed as copyrighted by the US government abroad, then they are an exception to the Bernie Convention. The questions in my earlier comment ( https://opengameart.org/comment/97510#comment-97510 ) remain unanswered.

"the question is if the submission can stay on OGA."

I think yes. Used a surely PD asset as source and licensed CC0, that's valid and sounds OGA compatible to me. (1st pitfall avoided)

"Assets on OGA must be reasonably safe for Europeans, Australians, UK, et al as well."

All of these countries are members of the Berne Union and have signed the convention. (2nd pitfall avoided)

"If images in the Public Domain are still claimed as copyrighted by the US government abroad, then they are an exception to the Bernie Convention"

My understanding is, "abroad" in this case can only mean non-Berne Convention countries. Berne Convention demands the same copyright from its members, no matter the nationality or residency nor the origin of the artwork. All copyrighted materials within BC countries must be recognized and protected equally.

So U.S. cannot expect copyright protection in France for example, when the same copyright protection is not given in the U.S. Because then France could say, hey, this artwork is copyrighted here in France, but another Berne Union member, the U.S. does not recognize and protect the same copyright for that artwork! So this would be clearly the violation of Article 3, IMHO.

But at this point you should really ask a lawyer. I think it's safe to say that if you expect the same copyright (or the lack thereof in this case) in all Berne Convention countries to be handled equally, then you surely act in good will, and (even if I'm wrong about the state of PD in BC) no-one can say you have deliberately violated any copyright law.

Cheers,
bzt

You need to back up those beliefs, bzt. Where does it say that? Where does it confirm that pd assets that the government claims copyright abroad are only non-Bernie convention participants. You can't just say "because that makes the most sense. I think that's how it works."

To be clear, I do agree with you, but at this point our speculation based on limited knowledge about this form of copyright is not advancing our understanding. I will look into contacting my attorney for some additional insight.

"You need to back up those beliefs, bzt."

I've already backed that up, but here it goes again.

"Where does it confirm that pd assets that the government claims copyright abroad are only non-Bernie convention participants"

See here

The Berne Convention requires its parties to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other parties to the convention (known as members of the Berne Union) at least as well as those of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published, distributed, performed, or in any other way accessible in France, regardless of where it was originally created, if the country of origin of that work is in the Berne Union.

...

Under Article 3, the protection of the Convention applies to nationals and residents of countries that are party to the convention

This makes it pretty clear to me, that a work can only be copyrighted in France for example, if it's also copyrighted in the U.S the same way.

Having an artwork copyrighted and protected in France but making it public domain in the U.S. is clearly the violation of the Berne Convention IMHO.

But you should ask a lawyer to be sure.

Cheers,
bzt

What does the O in IMHO stand for? My point is it isn't "backed up with facts" if we're speculating about what should be a convention violation. The US military is actively doing this with some of their photographs. Either we are the first to discover a convention violation (really?) or there is more to it than what we are aware of.

"What does the O in IMHO stand for?"

I have already told you, I'm not a lawyer, I can only offer my opinion.

"My point is it isn't "backed up with facts""

If you could really expect "backed up with facts" from international law, then all countries' laws were already harmonized. But they are not, because those laws are written by greedy humans for their own selfish interest (sadly).

Do not confuse human laws with the laws of Nature, which are universal and always based on facts, and nobody can violate them. Laws made up by humans can be easily violated, because those aren't facts based, those are interest based.

"The US military is actively doing this with some of their photographs. Either we are the first to discover a convention violation"

U.S. is known to actively and constantly violating international laws and always trying to bend the rules for its profit, so I wouldn't be so surprised if I were you. (Full disclosure, this is true to all countries, U.S. isn't an exception in this regard.)

"there is more to it than what we are aware of."

I don't think so. Article 3 is pretty clear that if an artwork is protected in one BC country, then it must be also protected in all the members of the BC.

Cheers,
bzt

I think the real question is if I am actually legally able to re-license my derivative work as CC0, since I was not relaying the images verbatim.

Either way, probably a good test case to sort out, although none of us may be legally qualified to do so.

TL;DR: Yes, Technopeasant, you are able to adapt your derivative work as CC0, moreso than if you had relayed the images verbatim. Since it was a new adapted work derived from Public Domain content, applying CC0 to your derivative is completely appropriate. Detailed explanation below.

@bzt:

"I have already told you, I'm not a lawyer, I can only offer my opinion."

Yes, I know. I'm telling you to stop giving your opinion because it is not advancing the discussion any. If you don't have new facts to share, stop talking. It's not that you're correct but we're just misunderstanding you. It's that you're only partially correct and we're trying to fill in the missing parts. Getting in the last word just derails the topic here.

Sharing information from established law (like links to the Berne Convention) is not an opinion, it is fact. That is something you've shared that is not opinion. Thank you, but now that you've shared it, it doesn't need to be re-shared every post. We get it. Now we're trying to work out the discrepancies without individual opinion and speculation.

Sharing a legal interpretation from a legal expert like lawyers and justices can be taken as trusted, and is therefore not considered an "opinion" in this sense. Consulting a lawyer and sharing the feedback you get would be helpful; not an opinion. In all likelihood it could never be applied to generalized scenarios like this because every legal circumstance is unique. Never-the-less, in the absence of legal advice, applicable legal information from legal experts will suffice.

Surt has already linked to PublicDomainSherpa, which is legal information from legal experts. Not legal advice, but still, not an "opinion" in this sense.

"But you should ask a lawyer to be sure."

Yes, I know. As I stated earlier, "I will look into contacting my attorney for some additional insight", and indeed I have done so. With that in mind, here are the facts we have:

1. The image in question has been placed "in the Public Domain in the United States" by the U.S. federal government: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2668378_-_235th_Military_Police_...
2. While US government works generally are in the public domain in the US, they may be protected by copyright abroad. The feds may claim copyright protection for US government works in other countries depending on how those countries treat their own government works: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/us-government-works.html
3. Berne Convention Article 3
1. The protection of this Convention shall apply to:
1. authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works, whether published or not;

(this is abridged for the sake of not copying the entire convention, but the full text can be seen at the following link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180523095521/http://www.wipo.int/treaties/... )

Fact 2 appears to conflict with fact 3:
#2 says government works may not be PD everywhere, even if they're in the PD in the US.
#3 says if it is in the PD in the US, it should be in the PD everywhere* (*'everywhere' meaning Berne Convention countries).

However, "the protection of this Convention shall apply to... nationals of one of the countries...". The U.S. federal government is not a national nor an individual.

Furthermore, the Berne Convention is not for protecting the users of copyleft content. It is for protecting the authors of copyright content. It does not force authors to open their content to member countries, even if they decide to share the content openly with some, but not others. On the contrary, it protects the rights of applicable authors to enforce their copyright. So if the U.S. Federal government were an applicable author of the picture in fact #1, then this convention would be saying "yes, Feds, your work is protected and you may enforce your copyright in any of the member countries." And the feds do indeed enforce copyright on some things; back to fact #2, not everything from the US Government is actually in the Public Domain.

This is similar to the following scenario: One author on OGA has publicly shared his work under the CC-BY-SA license, but if you're someone he likes or your project is one he happens to fancy, he will privately grant individual permissions to those specific people/groups to use it under the terms "You can do anything you want, no need to credit, or even share-alike, so long as you don't redistribute it outside your own project under these same terms."

Authors may grant a somewhat restrictive license to the public, but a more permissive license to specific groups for the exact same content. The US government is allowed to enforce copyright in any Berne participating countries, while at the same time say "but US nationals can use it for whatever... 'Murica!"

This is what I meant by "there is more to it than what we are aware of."

Now for the good news. Although the US government can enforce copyright, and may do so differently in the US than it does abroad, It doesn't appear to be doing so in the case of the picture from Fact #1.

The type of content over which the US government maintains copyrights does not include images that do not contain emblems, seals, "Standard reference data", sensitive or confidential content, personally identifiable likenesses, or rights transferred to it by assignment. In this case, the images are Public Domain. My initial assumption that the "in the United States" qualifier at the end was an extra stipulation, was wrong. Apologies for that. It appears to be the same as the phrase appended to Ragnar's example; Just specifying how/where it came to be in the PD, and indicate specificity over possibly unknown similar properties in other countries.

@Technopeasant. Thank you for your patience while we worked this out. I'm sorry you were dragged into something so seemingly frivolous, but I appreciate your taking the freedoms of copyright minutiae seriously with us. The asset in question has been un-flagged.

If Ragnar or Technopeasant have any additional questions about this or how it impacts their works, then by all means let us keep discussing until your questions are satisfied.

Unless there are no further concerns, I am confident this matter is resolved. However, if anyone feels this information is in error, and the assets in question should not be treated as derivatives of public domain content, please say so and why...

...except for bzt. Since this matter is settled, there is no reason to argue for it being Public Domain more... And you have forfeited arguing against it being Public Domain after vehemently arguing for it, so the only reason for you to continue responding is to be argumentative, rude, and derailing the topic. bzt, don't be argumentative. Don't derail the topic. Don't be rude. Don't get banned.

@MedicineStrom: "And you have forfeited arguing against it being Public Domain"

I've never did that. If you think that, then you've clearly misunderstood everything I was saying.

"Don't derail the topic. Don't be rude."

I was on-topic all the time, and I wasn't rude, not even the slightest bit. You're just imaging that, and it is clearly just a misunderstanding like your previous one.

There's nothing more to be said.

Cheers,
bzt

This topic make me think over and over again, since cc0 is the legal way to put own work in the public domain, I tought that public domain and cc0 was so close to eatch other. if it's not posible to post derivative of public domain as cc0 it become a problem for me.

I wanted to make a human pixel base (and later a horse and other animals), therefore I wanted to base my works on public domain. In france the rule is date of death + 70 years, like in US.

I tryed out diferetn variants here: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/pixel-base-project#comment-98839 For the first version (the side version) I don't know anything about the artist, but the paperdoll it was based on was publicated in 1921.

For the second (and forth) version, it was based on drawings from a book who the autor died in 1917.

I often see derivative and vectorised works from the public domain on cc0 sites.

Also the third version of the pixel base are the one that have been based on a true cc0 work

"...if it's not posible to post derivative of public domain as cc0 it become a problem for me."

Oh, not at all. :) That's allowed. That circumstance was already addressed above:

Since it was a new adapted work derived from Public Domain content, applying CC0 to your derivative is completely appropriate.

The thing about 'not applying CC0 on a PD asset' was for original, unmodified, not-derived PD assets.

Furthermore, you can put CC0 on an unmodified PD asset, you just shouldn't if you can help it because there are some regional differences and it's important to know how and where an asset entered the public domain. Simply stating something like "this fell into the Public Domain in 1881 in England" generally covers that, though. Again, not a requirement, but nice to provide that information when "Public Domain" is not one of the available licensing options... Like here on OGA.

Thanks for the respond, I offten check other contries to stay on the safe side. For the autor that died more than 100 years ago, she was from austria but worked in germany, so It's the date of death + 70 years rule according to her origins, the country she worked in and the information on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths (it seems to be the most common in europa)

So that let me chose betwen two safe possibilities. 

I'll try to se what works best for me. 

if not, work from Albrech Durer sould be more than safe ^^ but more dificult to work with to fit the style I want.