Proving Creative Commons Licensing of a Work?

Q7U asks: "I recently posted a few Creative Commons licensed photographs from Flickr on one of my websites. I later noticed that one of the photographers had retroactively switched all of his photos from the Creative Commons license to an 'All Right Reserved' notice. When I saw this I went ahead and removed his photo (even though I understand that CC licenses are perpetual unless violated), but this begs the question: How does one prove one obtained a work under a Creative Commons license, should there ever be a dispute between a creator and the licensee? Is a simple screenshot of the webpage where it was offered proof enough? Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated."

Comments

Good question.

[MostAwesomeDude]

In the past, I've tried to obtain the best physical proof possible, be it a timestamped email that affirms the license, or a piece of paper with a signature on it. Really, the best method is to get a positive affirmation on the work being CC, before the license is pulled.

Wayback

[CRCulver]

Too bad it's from Flickr. The indexing done by the Wayback Machine (archive.org) makes it easy to see how most individual websites looked at various points in the past.

Other Considerations

[TheWanderingHermit]

For me, as a writer, director, producer, and someone who sometimes does some amateur photography and other types of image creation, I think there's a bigger issue.

I, personally, don't want to be using someone's work as part of mine if they don't want it involved. When Kubrick used music from György Ligeti, his favorite composer, he was later sued for misuse of the composer's work. (I hear the composer won, but I don't remember the details.)

If someone has made photos licensed under CC, if I were going to use them, I'd be sure to obtain permission and verification first. I know there are some people who don't care about such things, but I feel it can detract from my work or my later editing of that work if there are issues involving arguments or fights over whether or not I had the right to use something in what I was doing.

In other words, do you really want to put in all the effort to use something against the will of the creator/author instead of finding something else that will do?

Re:Other Considerations

[TheWanderingHermit]

Ah, I see. You're a literalist.

Too bad the real world doesn't always work that way. I've been lucky enough to work with a number of lawyers (they're my clients, fortunately I'm not their client!). One thing I've learned is that you can be sued for almost anything. They don't have to have good firm grounds. You can be sued and be completely innocent and still spend tens of thousands to prove you're innocent.

It's much easier, as I said, in the long run, to do a little work up front. 95% of the time it's not necessary, but doing it in every case saves so much work, money, and time the one or two times something does go wrong that it makes up for it a thousand fold. People are not always predictable, but if you've contacted them and they've sent you a signed paper saying they're okay, the chances of them trying to sue later, even if they don't have solid grounds, is reduced to almost nothing.

Sure, you don't have to CYA. There are times I did not -- and it was a few of those times that taught me to always CYA. A little extra effort keeps one safe. Why take the risk?

Flickr

[Ray Radlein]

That can actually be a bit of a problem with Flickr; if you regularly upload both CC and © photos to your account, it can be very easy to accidentally upload pictures under the wrong license. On several occasions I have uploaded a photo meaning for it to be ©, only to discover that I had forgotten to turn off CC, leaving me to scramble over to the properties page and adjust the license. I was always absurdly afraid that someone would grab my picture in those few moments before I made the change and go to town on it.

Finally, I changed my default upload permissions to ©, on the theory that I could always CC-license the pictures after I was finished uploading them.

Re:It's a little more complicated

[SharpFang]

the problem is that screenshots are nearly worthless as a proof - you can modify them digitally leaving no trace of the modification, and without some trust system it's impossible to sign the screenshot proving it wasn't doctored.