[cc-community] Relicensing after cc-by-2.0 licence breach
Mia Garlick
mia at creativecommons.org
Wed Feb 28 17:31:43 EST 2007
hey paul,
so the definition of "You" under the license contemplates that a
licensee may continue to use the work despite a previous violation
but it's kind of conditional on whether the licensor is agreeable to
that (""You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under
this License who has not previously violated the terms of this
License with respect to the Work, or who has received express
permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License
despite a previous violation.")
i can certainly see your argument, if the work is available
elsewhere, that you have simple taken out a new license with respect
the work and are not yet in violation of those terms...certainly,
once you violate the license your license to use the work terminates
and your use becomes infringing unless you otherwise obtain
permission to use the work.
one question i do have though is whether your site is using the
images under the terms of the CC license or whether you are using it
under separate terms of use & it is the public who come across it who
use it under the CC license (this latter arrangement is how flickr
operates). in that case, what the CC license says becomes irrelevant
and its all down to your terms of use.
at the end of the day though, if someone doesn't want you to
distribute their image any more, regardless of who is right and who
is wrong, why do it? they reduce their exposure and you get a hassle
free inbox!!
rgds, mia
On Feb 28, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Paul Dixon wrote:
> The short version: If I breach the CC licence terms, can I simply
> re-licence the work by bringing myself back into compliance, or have I
> rendered myself permanently unable to use that work?
>
> Here's the story that lead to that question:
>
> I help to run www.geograph.org.ok, a growing archive of 300,000+ CC
> licenced photos of the UK and Ireland. We ask all contributors to
> adopt
> a cc-by-sa 2.0 licence on their submissions.
>
> A photo contributor changed their attribution credit from their
> name to
> "All Rights Reserved" which naturally confused site visitors and in
> particular, users of our image feeds. We assumed the contributor now
> wished to have their attribution removed, and so changed the
> attribution
> to "uncredited".
>
> This was an unfortunate error on our part, and when it was brought
> to my
> attention by the contributor I immediately restored the original
> credit.
>
> However, the contributor now asserts we have breached the licence and
> must remove his photographs. My counterclaim is the works are
> permanently available to anyone who wishes to comply with their terms.
> By restoring the credit, we have, in effect, simply re-licenced the
> works from the global pool of CC works.
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm right, but happy to hear confirmation either
> way....
>
>
> Paul Dixon
> Geograph Project
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
More information about the cc-community
mailing list