[cc-licenses] Creative Commons, Common Sense and Nonsense
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Mon Oct 8 16:11:16 EDT 2007
> One thing that confuses me is the commercial/non-commercial references.
> Isn't it true that this photo was release CC-By, and then later changed
> to CC-By-NC?
It was changed from CC-BY to All Rights Reserved.
> So basically, the photographer is arguing that CC should have made clear to him that the NC term would've protected him (and his subject) from Virgin's exploitation, right?
At least one photo on Flicker that was used by Virgin had a CC-NC
license when I saw it. (If that photo had a CC-NC license when Virgin
used it, and the copyright was registered prior to us, then that
photographer has a good case against Virgin.)
> I'm not sure that's as baseless as the article suggests, although I personally feel that using NC to avoid model-release issues is a bad precedent all around.
NC doesn't make model release requirements redundant.
One interesting aspect of the Virgin case, is determining how to
collect damages from foreign entities that willfully and deliberately
violate the license.
More information about the cc-licenses