Publishing public domain / Creative commons artwork by different author

I was wondering if there are any objections against publishing artwork by a different author that was already published elsewhere under public domain / creative commons? Of course, the author’s name should be used correctly and ideally a link to their website.

I don’t know much about licenses. Would this be okay to do?

@jon What were your thoughts back then when you put the limitation to only publish your own artwork into the web app?


Examples of public domain / creative commons content

Could you unpack this question? Who are you asking if they have objections? The artist, platform developers, frame owners, forum members?

If this channel is for curating wonderful frame-friendly things, I don’t see why them being available elsewhere should be a problem, as long is it is somewhat selective. Republishing all of openprocessing wouldn’t make a lot of sense, as there is a huge amount – it would make more sense to just link to it – but picking out frame-friendly gems from openprocessing would be great, in my personal opinion.

(Some of those platforms may also have ways of curating lists on them.)

Good points and sorry for not being more concise.

My question was more going towards the rights and licensing. I imagine Creative Commons / Public Domain would allow doing that generally. My question is, does the Openframe platform provide enough tools to do that? For example, attribution.

My question comes up because at the moment the web app doesn’t allow publishing artworks of other artists. You can only publish it if the artist name is your name. Also, the rights section in the docs has a big warning about this. It’s still possible to do this using the API and to be honest I’ve done this before already.

My reason to do this was to post good examples to ship with newly developed extensions. But of course, I think it would be great to get some more of those gems you’ve mentioned in the public stream. And I agree, not all of the content of a platform should be in the public stream, just a small selection.

I guess I was mostly expecting artists and the project initiators to answer. Artists, because probably they know about the rights part of it. But it would be good to hear anyone who knows about licenses really. Openframe initiators, because they put these restrictions in place for a reason and must have thought about this before.

Of course, in the end, all different opinions and viewpoints are important. And some people here have multiple roles anyway (users can be artists can be developers).

At the moment, the publishing feels too restrictive to me, and I’m not sure if it needs to be. Would it be sufficient to add a checkbox in which the user confirms to make sure that the content is public domain / creative commons which then allows publishing publicly?


Sorry, I completely misread your post – I thought, because this was posted in the Artwork forum channel, that you were asking about publishing public domain / cc artwork here, in this forum channel. I didn’t realize you were talking about license / metadata restrictions what can be published through the web app.

I’d agree that it would be nice for the app to allow indicating public domain and cc license types – and perhaps provide some way for the “Attribution” requirement to be satisfied.