[cc-community] CC Dragged Into Lawsuit

elliott bledsoe elliott at creativecommons.org.au
Thu Sep 20 21:15:55 EDT 2007


On 21/09/2007, at 10:48 am, Nic Suzor wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:24 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
>> I mean, say you take a street scene with lots of people in it. You  
>> put it
>> under a BY license. Do you need to get clearances from hundreds of  
>> people? O
>> nthe off chance someone wants to crop out a face and use the image  
>> as an
>> endorsement?
>
> No, this is obviously not a workable solution. But I am wary of
> statements which could be seen to be misleading or deceptive. An
> argument could be raised (and I'm not saying that it would necessarily
> be correct) that the photographer, by saying "you can use this image
> commercially", is not being sufficiently clear that the permission  
> only
> applies to copyright.
>
>> I would like to see better, honest, tutorials for photographers on  
>> the
>> interaction of all of this as it relates to Free works at some point.
>
> I think this is critical. However, I also think that the licence deeds
> should clearly state that the licence applies only to copyright  
> owned by
> the licensor, and does not affect (a) other copyright which may be
> embodied in the work, and (b) rights other than copyright. At the
> moment, we mention moral rights but nothing else.

i agree with nic on both points. obviously, ideally we would want  
people who are cc licensing to have cleared all third-party rights to  
a work under a cc licence (an issue addressed by jessica coates and i  
when writing in filter magazine about the video slam project (http:// 
openchannel.org.au/blogs/videoslam/) run here in australia, pp14-16,  
http://www.anat.org.au/pages/forumspubs/FilterArchive/ 
Filter65_WEB.pdf) but the licence doesn't warrant that the licensor  
has done so. the reality is that often that hasn't happened.

on the second point, the cc licences shouldn't have to encompass  
every possible periphery legal/moral/industry requirement outside of  
copyright law that in implicated in a specific kind of (re)use of the  
content. they are copyright licences not a do-anything-and-everything  
licence.

but that said, i agree with nic that the commons deed should be more  
explicit in stating that other these kinds of things are not  
necessarily cleared. lets face it, very few people read the full  
licence (which does state this stuff) so if people are relying on the  
commons deed for information then it should be clearer.

and as a final point, virgin's lawyers should know better



_elliott (ccau)


>
> nic.
> _______________________________________________
> 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