Difference between Public Domain vs Public Domain Mark 1.0?

[orko]

Hi there,
I was browsing contents from archive.org for a while to use few for my documentary. I have came across contents marked as Public Domain or Public Domain mark 1.0.

Suppose these two following videos
XXX/1950CommercialForCamelCigarettesad2
XXX/ClassicAuntJemimaCommercial1967

Can both be used for non commercial purposes?

 

[quincy]

Hi there,
I was browsing contents from xxxx.org for a while to use few for my documentary. I have came across contents marked as Public Domain or Public Domain mark 1.0.

Suppose these two following videos
XXX/1950CommercialForCamelCigarettesad2
XXX/ ClassicAuntJemimaCommercial1967

Can both be used for non commercial purposes?

Public domain materials are those that are no longer protected under copyright law (either because of age or failure to renew the copyright). Public domain marks are words or symbols that are or have become generic.

If the commercials are no longer protected by copyright due to a failure by the copyright holder to renew the copyrights AND the commercials are no longer protected under trademark law, then they can be used. However, both Aunt Jemima and Camel Cigarettes are still trademarks used in commerce.

You would want to acquire permission from the trademark holders if you wish to use the commercials (depending on the type of non-commercial use intended).

 

[FlyingRon]

Hi there,
I was browsing contents from archive.org for a while to use few for my documentary. I have came across contents marked as Public Domain or Public Domain mark 1.0.

Suppose these two following videos
XXX/1950CommercialForCamelCigarettesad2
XXX/ClassicAuntJemimaCommercial1967

Can both be used for non commercial purposes?

In the context you are looking at they are not LEGAL TERMS but Creative Commons own made-up classification. Did you bother to CLICK the links that these words form? They lead you to THEIR definitions.
The one without the 1.0 is their previous and now deprecated marking.

The 1950 one probably is in the public domain because these sort of things typically didn't get copyright renewed (though it's possible that it did). The 1967 one however is quite likely still under copyright.

Depending on what exactly you're doing you may be covered under fair use even if they were protected under copyright. "Non commercial" doesn't make it legitimate to STEAL other people's stuff nor does it much enter into the determination. The usual measure is how much you damaged thier ability to make money from their property.

In addition to copyright you have TRADEMARK issues with these products.

 

[quincy]

Although I have done very little investigation, there sure appears to be a wealth of both copyright and trademark infringing material on that site.

A link to what Creative Commons has to say about "Copyright-Only Designation or Public Domain Certification:"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/