[cc-community] CC Dragged Into Lawsuit
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Sep 23 10:27:40 EDT 2007
On Saturday 22 September 2007 05:30 pm, Gavin Baker wrote:
> This also came up on the iCommons list recently, so I wanted to
> share a few links here:
>
> http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html
> http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/09/22/the_texas_suit_against_virgin_and_cr
>eative_commons.html
> http://www.gavinbaker.com/2007/09/22/lets-all-sue-creative-commons/
>
> My post contains some practical suggestions for CC, which I'll paste
> here -- what do you think?
>
> * On the "Things to Think About"[1] page, add a point about rights other
> than copyright. Be clear that the right to use the copyright in certain
> ways does not invalidate any claims about privacy, publicity,
> defamation, trade secrets... there's a lot that could be entangled here.
>
snip
>
> * In the human-readable license summary, along with the disclaimer that
> the license doesn't affect the user's fair use or fair dealing rights,
> add a disclaimer that says "This license only applies to copyright in
> the work and not to any other rights."
But it applies to more than just copyrights. It can apply to related rights?
as well if something I have just been learning about is correct. Your
comments, adjustments to your language?
> This could also be a time to
> point toward what's not protected by any right: e.g. "This license only
> applies to copyright in the work, insofar as it exists, and not to any
> other rights." This might make it clearer to the user that
> non-copyrightable material, such as ideas, concepts, facts, and works
> which have passed into the public domain cannot acquire any additional
> restrictions under a CC license.
>
> * Add a disclaimer in the lawyer-readable license to state, in legal
> terms, the above.
>
> * Since this subject is recently in the news, post a brief summary or
> FAQ on the CC blog reiterating points like "What is a commercial
> use?"[3] and "What other legal issues might be entangled in a
> copyrighted work?" This might also be a good time to address the
> question "How can I protect myself against getting burned by using an
> apparently CC-licensed work?"
Instructional and tutorial pages would be most welcome. Again though, is this
something CC wants to do / should do?
>
> [1] http://creativecommons.org/about/think/
> [2] http://creativecommons.org/license/
> [3] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NonCommercial_Guidelines
all the best,
drew
>
> jonathon wrote:
> > Fred wrote:
> >> If the photographer had used a NC license this lawsuit and problem
> >> wouldn't have arose.
> >
> > FWIW, take a look at http://www.flickr.com/groups/379879@N24/
> >
> > Virgin Mobile Pty Ltd did use photographs that have a BY-SA license.
> >
> > Alison Chang's picture currently has an _All Rights Reserved_ tag on it.
> > The photographer claims that the original license was CC-BY-NC 2.0
> > Somebody else claimed that the original license was CC-BY 2.0
> >
> > The major issues are that Virgin Mobile PTY LTD did not have a model
> > release, and the model is under 18.
> >
> > xan
> >
> > jonathon
More information about the cc-community
mailing list