Creative Commons being sued

[Stephen Ewen]

Quite an interesting story I've been following, thought I might pass it along:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html

http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html

http://www.icommons.org/articles/cc-not-in-a-theater-near-you-wo-model-releases

This comes on the heels of another similar case recently.

The buzz among online photography communities seems to be that of confirming suspicions of using commercial-allowable CC licenses, and an apparent definite backlash against "free" content in general among the semi-pros.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I think these are very positive developments, and legally and morally appropriate. They also highlight the need for us to make a clear distinction between images which actually are public domain and those which people have stolen and passed off as either PD or publishable.

[Robert_W_King]

This is definately going to be a litmus-test for CC licensing. 

[Stephen Ewen]

This just up -

Andrew Orlowski on the matter is as colorful as always:

"But it's the section of the lawsuit that names and shames Creative Commons that promises [to] have lasting consequences for 'Web 2.0' and 'user generated content'." ....

"Creative Commons owned a duty to Justin Wong," argue the Chang family in the complaint, but "breached this duty by failing, among other things, to adequately educate and warn him ... of the meaning of commercial use and the ramifications and effects of entering into a license allowing such use."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Well, for me the whole attitude of corporations to copyright is evidenced by the fact that Virgin couldn't even be bothered to follow the minimum obligation of crediting the photographer. CC which allows commercial usage is just a ploy by business to take a free ride on the public [as usual], and most of the public has been conned by it.

Now we are likely to have a resurgence of copyright protection measures, by people who probably have no interest in copyright but do not want their images/publications etc re-used in whatever way others choose. It shows that CZ has been wise to show caution over these issues, but it also suggests that we should resist attribution claims being made which are not legally valid.

[Joe Quick]

Well, one thing is for sure: our policy about connecting real names to photos is right on the mark.  Take a look at on of the posters that triggered the lawsuit.  In the bottom left, you'll see the web address for the photographer's flickr page.  It doesn't have his name, just his flickr page.  And he's suing based on Virgin's failure to provide attribution.  We seem to be vindicated in our assertion that avatars and pseudonyms just won't cut it.

[Robert_W_King]

Honestly I never even considered this before--I've always been of the position that I don't particularly care what happens to pictures that I take, but suddenly I'm concerned about attribution a great deal more than I was in the past.

[Aleta Curry]

Yeah, well, lemme tell ya--couldn't have happened at a worse time--

Just when I was starting to ask people (read "a professional photographer") if I could use their dog photos.

Boy did I cop an earful!  (screenful)

[Stephen Ewen]

It shows that CZ has been wise to show caution over these issues, but it also suggests that we should resist attribution claims being made which are not legally valid.

LOL.    Believe me a thousand time over that heirs of original authors, and museums and the like who make PD materials available to CZ, are not going to sue CZ for following the widely accepted and requested convention of crediting them, e.g., John Doe / Acme Museum. 

What it will do, in fact, is give CZ a good reputation, with the credibly hopeful end of allowing us to host images we'd otherwise not be able to without charge.   

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

The point is, Steve, that copyright law is not written in stone and is likely to be re-defined with mass electronic communication. Powerful commercial interests have already positioned themselves to take advantage of any ambiguities: yes, they want you to credit them for PD images. Why? Well, I leave it to you to work it out...