Comments on: Creative Commons license upheld by court

A "significant development" in copyright law: European court rules that a Creative Commons license is binding.

[hadaso]

Obviously they need a permision

Obviously they need a permision! If there was no license they would not have been allowed to use the material without permision. If there is a license the law still applies and they still need permision, and they only have the permisions in the license unless they ask the author for other permisions and the author agrees.

Claiming that they were misled by not reading the details is the same as claiming they have been misled by not seeing any copyright notice! There is no legal requirement to explicitly limit the use. There is only legal requirement to explicitly allow use. By default all uses of copyrighted work is forbiden, and by default everything is copyrighted.

[hadaso]

Obviously they need a permision

Obviously they need a permision! If there was no license they would not have been allowed to use the material without permision. If there is a license the law still applies and they still need permision, and they only have the permisions in the license unless they ask the author for other permisions and the author agrees.

Claiming that they were misled by not reading the details is the same as claiming they have been misled by not seeing any copyright notice! There is no legal requirement to explicitly limit the use. There is only legal requirement to explicitly allow use. By default all uses of copyrighted work is forbiden, and by default everything is copyrighted.

[marileev]

Flickr Clear Usage Guidelines

The Licensing on Flickr is clear and even sites examples: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

It's unfortunate Mr. Curry didn't change the type of permissions on his daughter's photos, but that's the way it goes. For the most part on the PhotoBlogs and Groups on Flickr, a photographer credit will go a long way.

Among its many, many advocates, UK Comedian Dave Gorman even sites why he loved Flickr: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,1731355,00.html

--Marilee Veniegas
http://www.iwantmyess.com

[marileev]

more clarification

Sorry I should clarify more, did the person who pulled it mean for it to be for profit? Yeah, probably so, but what about reuse of the image for a charity function? --mv

[marileev]

Flickr Clear Usage Guidelines

The Licensing on Flickr is clear and even sites examples: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

It's unfortunate Mr. Curry didn't change the type of permissions on his daughter's photos, but that's the way it goes. For the most part on the PhotoBlogs and Groups on Flickr, a photographer credit will go a long way.

Among its many, many advocates, UK Comedian Dave Gorman even sites why he loved Flickr: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,1731355,00.html

--Marilee Veniegas
http://www.iwantmyess.com

[marileev]

more clarification

Sorry I should clarify more, did the person who pulled it mean for it to be for profit? Yeah, probably so, but what about reuse of the image for a charity function? --mv

Not enough!

The fines should have been comparable to what is imposed for illegal for profit use of any copyrighted material. It shouldn't be just $1000 per incidence. That makes it a financial decision instead of a deterent: "will we make more than $1000 but stealing these pictures and printing them?"

[marileev]

fines

I wonder if the judge based the fines on say what a person would pay for Royalty Free images from sites like http://www.gettyimages.com ?

The low-ball fine does seem low. I remember Kim Bassinger & Alec Baldwin had sued when pictures of their then newborn daughter were published, but that was before file-sharing.

Not enough!

The fines should have been comparable to what is imposed for illegal for profit use of any copyrighted material. It shouldn't be just $1000 per incidence. That makes it a financial decision instead of a deterent: "will we make more than $1000 but stealing these pictures and printing them?"

[marileev]

fines

I wonder if the judge based the fines on say what a person would pay for Royalty Free images from sites like http://www.gettyimages.com ?

The low-ball fine does seem low. I remember Kim Bassinger & Alec Baldwin had sued when pictures of their then newborn daughter were published, but that was before file-sharing.