[cc-community] Burda vs. CC photographer
Ulrike Elteste (Mahlmann)
Ulrike.Mahlmann at gmx.de
Fri Sep 11 04:27:15 EDT 2009
Berlin fashion photographer Mary Scherpe (http://www.maryscherpe.de/) reports here (http://pudri.blogspot.com/2009/09/internet-is-for-free.html , in German) that nine of her “Stil in Berlin” http://stilinberlin.blogspot.com/ photos that she had made available on the Internet under a Creative Commons License (NC-ND) were used without her consent and without credit to her by a Burda magazine last year.
According to Scherpe, she charged the publisher her usual fee, plus a 100% surcharge for the failure to attribute the photos to her. If the facts stated are correct, this would be the amount she is entitled to. The publisher offered only half the amount, “wouldn’t she be interested in working with Burda in the future?” – but did not suggest a concrete project. Scherpe refused and filed a complaint for copyright infringement with a Berlin court. The court decision is due on Oct.12.
Among many predictably outraged comments on the blog there are some by an anonymous “A.B.” that sound either ridiculous or downright scary, depending on the state of your nerves (“it was very unwise of you to decline the publisher’s settlement offer… are you really sure it was clever to make this public? We the decision makers know who you are… Nobody will give you any work from now on…”, etc.).
Apparently somebody out there has watched “The Godfather” too often…
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:13:01 +0000
> Von: jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com>
> An: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Betreff: Re: [cc-community] ported licenses
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:02, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> > Since I'm not a lawyer (although I am usually pretty good at reading
> licenses) could you provide some specific incompatibilities?
> There is a clause in the CC-BY-SA (UK) version that permits
> collection societies to collect royalties on behalf of the copyright
> owner. This clause is absent from the unported version.
> > later version of the license if you want (Section 2.3 of the UK
> version, Section 4.b of the unported version).
> >Which leads me to ask: are there these incompatibilities with the 3.0
> versions of these two licenses?
> AFAIK, no. However I haven't looked at anything other than 3.0
> unported in any detail.
> >> That is probably the best known, but not the only example of CC license
> > Is there a list of these somewhere?
> My impression is that Creative Commons Foundation does tht list
> somewhere on their website. However, the only lists I've seen have
> been created by end users.
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
More information about the cc-community