[cc-community] CC lawsuit?
Greg London
email at greglondon.com
Thu Sep 21 10:34:42 EDT 2006
> Finally, I was unsure whether this belonged in on the
> cc-community list or on the cc-license list as it
> discusses the detail of the BY-NC-ND license. Or both?
The "license" list is more for discussing new licenses,
license changes, and questions about licenses. Though
there is some overlap, I'd say this is probably the
correct list.
> How significant would it be for one of the first CC
> related lawsuits to be based on such shaky ground?
I don't see it as significant. It won't change the
effectiveness of the license if someone brings a lawsuit
and loses because they misunderstood what the license says.
Just a quick assessment, the "BY" part of the license
looks to be the easiest to tell if there has been a violation.
If the photo was used and the original photographer was
not given attribution in the advertisement, then that's
a violation of the license.
As for NoDerivatives, I'm not sure. If the photo was used
unaltered in a TV ad, then it *may* be a collective work
or it may not.
As for NonCommercial, that's a tough one too. CC's definition
of NonCommercial is fairly complicated and has been the
subject of a lot of work trying to nail down exactly
what it means. I'm not sure how political advertising
compares, but I believe the NonCommercial clause has
at least two bits that might make the ad qualify as NC.
See the NC license legal text here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode
Specifically:
::You may not exercise any of the rights granted to
::You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily
::intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or
::private monetary compensation.
I don't know if a political ad violates this.
The ad isn't selling the photo, and it isn't
advertising something else that might be sold.
It's trying to get someone elected to office.
So, I'm not sure if a judge would see any
"monetary compensation" going on that would
violate the license.
Greg
--
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org
> It looks like someone is going to file a suit over a
> Creative Commons work. A Northeast Ohio blogger claims
> that an Ohio candidate has inappropriately used a
> photograph in an attack ad. Here are a couple related
> posts from said blogger's ...er... blog:
>
> http://ohio2006elections.blogspot.com/2006/09/ohio-house-57th-martin-r-steals-my.html
> http://ohio2006elections.blogspot.com/2006/09/have-you-seen-attack-ad-against-matt.html
>
> The NEO blogosphere congregates around a blog called
> Brewed Fresh Daily which has at least a couple related
> posts:
>
> http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com/2006/09/20/ohio-gop-invites-neo-blogger-to-take-them-to-court/
> http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com/2006/09/18/unfair-use/
>
> There are several trackbacks on the posts which you
> can follow to see other opinions. Mostly these are
> just displays of support from fellow bloggers.
>
> There are several issues. I'm new to the list so these
> issues may have been settled but they're open as far
> as I can see.
>
> The photograph was licensed under BY-NC-ND. It was
> used in a television advertisement. Some people are
> alleging that this is a derivative work but I'm not
> sure that it isn't a collective work. The photograph
> wasn't altered, merely included in another work. Some
> people are also alleging that it was a commercial work
> but all the money involved went from the candidate to
> the ad agency, the TV station, etc... I'm not sure
> it's a commercial use. It's clear that there was no
> attribution but the license says that the credit must
> be given in a manner "reasonable to the medium" so
> that it is at least "as prominent" as other credit
> given in the work. I'm not sure what standard for
> attribution this sets for television advertising.
>
> I'm sure it's far too early to tell whether this will
> have any significant impact on the CC community. I
> think it's very likely that the parties responsible
> for the tv ad will back down from the threat and
> behave exactly as though the photograph were an
> all-rights-reserved copyrighted work. Does that in and
> of itself mean anything to the CC community? As I
> said, I'm not sure that the CC license holder is on
> solid ground in his interpretation of the license. How
> significant would it be for one of the first CC
> related lawsuits to be based on such shaky ground? Are
> my doubts reasonable in the first place?
>
> Finally, I was unsure whether this belonged in on the
> cc-community list or on the cc-license list as it
> discusses the detail of the BY-NC-ND license. Or both?
>
> -Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
--
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org
What happens when one editor prefers
Sneetches with stars on their bellies,
and another editor prefers no stars on thars.
More information about the cc-community
mailing list