Cc-uk mailing list

[JS Hatcher <s0456260 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

On 24 Oct, 2005, at 9:57 AM, Paul Dixon wrote:

> There are some public places in the UK where professional photography
> requires a permit, such as Trafalgar Square (source [1]). What happens
> when someone publishes one of their amateur snaps under a CC licence
> allowing commercial activity (see [2] for example)
>
> This raises a number of questions I'd be interested in hearing opinion 
> on...
>
> 1) If a photographer is aware of the prohibition, can they actually
> grant commercial terms? Is the licence void as a result?

You can't  grant what you don't own. The photographer owns a copyright 
in the photograph no matter if it infringes or not. The license applies 
to that photograph, but doesn't mean that the photo doesn't infringe 
someone else's copyright.  It might help to think of a photo of a 
painting.

> 2) In most cases like this, I would imagine the photographer is unaware
> of the prohibition. Who is exposing themselves to potential legal
> action? Someone using the image commercially? The original 
> photographer?
> A site like Geograph distributing the image for free?
The answer here is that if the photograph infringes, then everyone is 
exposed. State of mind is not a factor in copyright infringement, nor 
is commercial use.  These factors may play into the damages aspect of a 
suit.

> 3) there's no mechanism for "recall" with a CC licence, once the 
> subject
> matter is "out there" and someone has exercised the licence there's no
> way to put the genie back in the bottle. How do we deal with situations
> where a photographer or third party discovers a potental licence
> problems months or years after a work was licenced?

I'm not so sure that the "genie is out of the bottle" any more than any 
other infringing use on the internet, such as music. The difficulties 
policing copyright on the internet are the same.
>
Thanks!

--Jordan
http://twitchgamer.net