[cc-community] Want your comments and feedback on Selling CC-By-SA-NC
andrewrens at gmail.com
Sat Oct 9 18:28:14 EDT 2010
On 9 October 2010 13:36, Lloyd <cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/10/2010 17:49, Andrew Rens wrote:
>> Regardless of the specific CC license, one still needs to do
>> due diligence. That means that one still needs to contact
>> the purported copyright holder, and verify that they are the
>> legitimate copyright holder of that content, and that they
>> authorized distribution of that content under the license
>> that it is purported to be distributed under.
>> I guess that I must have missed the day at law school when they taught
>> about the legal provision that requires that a person must assume that
>> everyone is lying and that one has a positive legal obligation to second
>> guess legal notices claiming copyright and granting permissions
> I seem to recall that this fellow claimed that he got the Lara Jade Coton
> picture from a website of PD images. Didn't turn out to well at all.
Interesting case. Here is a link to the actual judgment:
The judgment is really clear that if you are a small time pornographer who
infringes the copyright in a photograph you found on the Internet, and you
don't mount an actual defense, but did claim in an email that the image was
on a public domain website, that you will be held liable.
The claim was never contested in court, so the plaintiff won because the
defendant never showed up. Because judgment was default judgment,
defendant's no show is generally taken as an admission of the claims of the
Its not authority for the claim that everyone who uses something under an
open license is under a legal duty to second guess the licensor's legal
notice and contact the licensor just to make sure.
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
ex africa semper aliquid novi (http://aliquidnovi.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community