Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the go-cc-go-cc-go dept.

musicon writes "As seen on Groklaw, a recent court decision upheld the the Creative Commons license in the Netherlands: 'The Creative Commons licenses are quite new, so there has been very little in the way of case law so far, so this is a significant development. The ruling rejected a 'the license wasn't clear' defense, particularly for sophisticated entities, and it upheld the license as binding without the licensee having to agree or even to have knowledge of the terms of the license.' You can read successful plaintiff Adam Curry's blog on the ruling too."

4 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. That is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is misleading to say that the license is binding without the licensee knowing or accepting it. The license isn't actually binding if the licensee doesn't accept it, but then copyright kicks in and the non-licensee has even fewer rights, so either way the (non-)licensee is in violation (of the law or the license). You can't however enforce a license that the other party hasn't agreed to.

    1. Re:That is misleading by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only thing that applies meaning to the installation is the EULA, so if I don't agree then pushing the button doesn't mean anything.

      More interestingly, what if someone else agrees on my behalf, without my permission? Now, you might initially say that that other person would bear responsibility for my use, but what if the third-party involved had fur, whiskers, and a tail? And just to avoid the "I have responsibility for my pets" problem, presume this furry li'l EULA-circumventor stores nuts for the winter and came in through an open window.

      Or for a potentially more likely way around agreeing to a EULA (and in fact, the way that I personally use whenever possible) - Most Windows installers (and all MSIs?) allow a silent installation as a command-line option. Silent, as in, it never asks you to agree, or even tells you about what you would otherwise have agreed to. I'd like to see that scenario played out in court...

  2. Actually, it didn't hold up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the company was _not_ penalized for using
    the pictures in the first place

  3. Re:Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The way to deal with this "loophole" is to offer a choice of licenses: An open source license for the people who don't mind sharing back and a commercial license for the people who can't or don't want to share. When someone infringes on your copyright, the damage is the money that they didn't pay for the commercial license. (IANAL, this is not legal advice.)