Slashdot Mirror
What To Do About CC License Violations?
An anonymous reader writes "In the past, I've seen my pictures used by big commercial companies despite the Creative Commons license that clearly limits them to non-commercial use. I just let it slide because a friend who's a lawyer says that all I can do is sue. They've ignored emails and comments. Today, I saw two other examples that show this is pretty rampant. These big commercial corporations are some of the most tech savvy publications around, but they just grabbed the image. One, BoingBoing, even reprinted the 'non-commercial' clause, warning others to stay away. But they've got their ads from Cheerios, HP and Mazda running alongside. Does anyone care that we've gone to all this trouble to create new, more flexible licenses? Does it even matter when very smart people just flip the bird to the license? Is the only alternative to sue? I wouldn't mind asking for $150k and settling for $1 for each copy made, but that seems a bit crazy. I hate to type out DMCA notices but their attitude is that only uncool people complain about this and I should be happy about the publicity. Then they can be happy about not sharing their ad revenue with artists or photographers. What can I do?" Update: 08/30 18:39 GMT by T : (Very belated; mea culpa.) Cory Doctorow writes: "The anonymous submitter is not the creator of the photo. The creator of
that photo is Jennifer Trant, a friend and colleague of mine who has no
trouble with my use of her photo. I have just gotten off the phone with
her and confirmed that she did not submit the story and also that she is
happy to have this photo on Boing Boing." The photo has since been added back to BoingBoing.
Invoice them. If they don't pay, sue them.
This sounds like one of those situations where a DMCA takedown would work...
Wired, having y'know, actual printed copies and stuff, could probably be intimidated into an actual settlement more easily...
Why ask about it on Slashdot? We'll all say information wants to be free and we don't believe in imaginary property. Oh, wait, you said big corporations are ripping off your stuff? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS1!!11!!1!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Information wants to be free - stick it to the man - hey thanks for the content, sucker.
I'll be keeping my information to myself now - thx CC and blogs run by "Xeni" - a name that just oozes trust and professionalism.
(says a slashdot poster with the name jewishbaconzombies)
If you don't sue, who will? Perhaps the EFF can help.
1. Send a DMCA notice.
2. They take it down, you DON'T sue, you DON'T get any money
3. Case closed.
or
1. Send a DMCA notice.
2. They don't take it down.
3. Sue.
4. Lose money on legal fees
5. They take it down. You still don't get any money.
DONT EXPECT MONEY!
sue! it's the American way!
Your lawyer is right. All you can do is sue them.
Your other option is just don't put stuff up on the web if you don't want people/corporations ripping it off. They will, you know.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Sue. The only remedy that is available in a civil society is to sue. Use statutory damages for the amount.
What other solution do you think there would be?
So in the examples listed, are the authors making any money off the image...? If so, no harm done right? Because when software/movies/music/etc. are pirated for non-financial gain, it's no big deal. At least that's what I've heard on /.
I've had similar things happen with my own works that I've licensed under either the CC or similar media-suited licenses. It's very annoying. Even worse, it's always the big companies that could actually afford a to pay for whatever rights necessary that dont, in my experience. Very sloppy business practices...
But what can you do? You have a choice: protect your rights (while you still have them!), ot let corporations take the piss. Pretty simple, really.
cat:
Regarding the one vendor telling people to stay away from YOUR image, put up a copy on a website, and then taunt them with it. Make them sue you. Your response in Court should be most interesting. :-)
...hired goons. Nothing says loving like a hired goon visit.
Suing's all you've got, it's all big corporations will pay attention to. They just shrug off DMCA notices, because a DMCA notice is a piece of paper until it becomes a lawsuit. If you're not willing to suck it up and do it, then you shouldn't be surprised when they walk all over you. When people learn that actions have no consequences, they tend to repeat them.
On the bright side, there have been successful suits brought against CC violators.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
if someone wants the non-logo version, they have to contact you directly and demonstrate that they've read the license.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
You could send them an invoice for the use of your work.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
don't bother using it? IANAL, but isn't that how stuff like trademarks work? If you don't defend it, you're giving away the right to use it?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
...check out the list of CC Friendly Lawyers at creativecommons.org. Somebody might be able to offer advice that doesn't involve suing the infringing parties.
mmmm...forbidden donut
I'd say you are fool for releasing anything on creative commons.
suck it up, don't do it again, and place a watermark in the middle of your shots.
It's up for debate as to whether or not BoingBoing is receiving "monetary compensation" for "exchanging" your work. Yes, it's next to ads, which they're being paid to display. But they're not being paid to display your image. At least, not directly.
How did they convey that impression to you? They can read the license. They can easily purchase stock imagery to use or find imagery that allows commercial use. If they're blowing off your e-mails, perhaps they won't blow off a letter from a lawyer. You explicitly went out of your way to choose a license that prohibits commercial use, and now they're exploiting your work. Sue 'em (presumably you'd settle out of court). Wired and BoingBoing should both know better. If they wanted a license for commercial use, they could have contacted you, and maybe you'd have even given it to them for free, but they didn't.
Boing Boing releases all of their stuff under CC NC SA, so you may not have a case there. IANAL, but that's probably the last one you'd want to take on over other companies.
but would it not be possible to post lo-res versions with CC license information and a link to you to request higher-res copies for use within the commercial work, or does that go against the point of posting hi-res with CC in the first place?
Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
You have a couple of options.
1. Stop posting your photos on the Internet.
2. Do nothing and accept the exposure.
3. You can sue.
Like it or not but the legal system is probably the answer. Try to find a firm that will take on the case for free in exchange for a larger share of the profits. If you can't find a firm to take it on then reality is your work probably isn't worth any real money anyways so you should probably just accept the exposure and move on.
Or like I said earlier just stop posting your photos on the Internet.
--
Life's tough get a helmet.
Find a lawyer who will work in the hopes of getting a portion of the settlement. That way, the cost to you will be minimal.
This is slashdot. All digital content "wants" to be free. Just as /.ers should haven't to pay for music, movies or audiobooks, neither should corporations.
File against them in small claims court for the maximum allowed. They will probably not bother to show, so you will win. With a judgement, you have legal permission to do all kinds of creative nastiness to them. Garnishing wages, filing liens against their property, even having a sheriff by your side as you take some of their property to fulfill the judgement.
I am obviously not a lawyer, and the details will vary with jurisdiction.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
1) How do you find violations? Did you just happen to stumble across it, or does your host provide the means to detect when it's being hotlinked? Is it from all the visitors clicking on the link that makes the activity on that image go up?
2) if you don't mind a little hassle, you could just only publish a low res image and have people request the higher quality image? You could then police the proper usages of the image, but I suppose it won't stop the people using the low res image anyways, such as the blogs in your example.
The EFF should use these examples and any others that can be gathered as ammunition as to why copyright holder lawsuits against individuals are invalid since they abuse the copyrighted works of individuals. (US law says those are copyrighted at the moment of creation regardless of any CC terms or not...)
Boing-boing probably isn't violating your copyright. If they have used a compressed, low quality version of the photo and are using it for commentary, it would fall under fair use.
The obvious thing would be to send them an invoice for a commercial license to your asset. Odds are, accounting will be more than happy to process it. No need to sue, or threaten to... Hell, you might just snag yourself a customer, if you are not careful for other assets too.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Of all people, Cory Doctorow would know if he had violated the CC ...
The summary states plain as day that the non-commercial CC license was used, so if the offenders weren't using his material in the furtherance of making a buck he wouldn't have a problem.
The Boing Boing "article" you linked to was written by Cory Doctorow himself. There are probably easier ways to contact him than through Boing Boing... Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem. Perhaps Boing Boing's editor needs a lesson about CC actually being a form of copyright? But, to be fair, given the content of that article (or rather the lack of it), I doubt they would have paid to have an image there in the first place -- it would have been either no image at all, or a CC image with a less restrictive license.
Have them contact you if they want the non-watermarked version, which will, if your stuff is as good as you make it out to be, be undoubetdly lower quality. As their quality slips, so does their ad-revinue. They should eventually turn back to their cash-cow. Best way to deal with this horseshit is to nip it in the bud. At least in a perfect world.
Boredom is bliss.
http://www.eff.org/about/contact
Copyright infringement is, you know, an actual crime with legal penalties above and beyond what might be collected by someone who sues them for it.
Press charges against them for infringing on your copyright. You can trivially show that they did not have permission to copy your work by pointing out the self-evident fact that they had not adhered to the limitations you imposed on people to retain any permission to copy the work.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Boing Boing releases their stuff using a license that would prevent others from picking it all up on a different web site and selling ads. This doesn't give them the right to use others' work in a way that conflicts with the license (other than fair use, which might allow for a thumbnail link). I think that this license violation on their part was inadvertent, the author of the web page thought he was filing his personal "I'm on vacation" announcement and forgot about the ads. In the case of BoingBoing I would politely ask them to take it down, and to respect that "noncommercial" means "don't attach ads to this". The copyright holder can still decide to grant permission if asked politely.
There are many sayings from many places, and I find that most of them don't work, or are just outdated. So I won't bore you with those. But the best thing you can do *now* is to look after yourself.
1) You've done your job in taking the photos and protecting your work.
2) You've noticed and are considering actions
3) You must take action to protect your work and receive fair payment for it.
So do yourself and others a favor and stand up for the little guy. If you don't, and no one else does, then that's how it'll always be.
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
Begin by sending a polite request to remove the content that is being used without permission.
I don't mind as long as they do not alter the images & site the source, using them on a site that's driven by ad revenue doesn't bother me, what does bother me is if someone claims my work as their own, or if they (try to) sell it, but that's just me i guess
I scanned the text of the CC license in question for mentions of what "non-commercial" actually means, and this looks to be it:
I doubt using an image for editorial illustration can be said to be "primarily intended for commercial advantage". It sounds to me like the only thing this license really disallows is using your image in advertising. (IANAL)
torch something.
...with some of the images I've uploaded to wikipedia - google duma_roll.jpg to see what I mean.
Thing is, I couldn't care less as anything that goes on the Web is going to get ripped off left, right and centre anyway. That's why I released my newer pictures as public domain, people are going to do whatever they want anyway...
Invoice them. If they don't pay, sue them.
That's exactly the major record labels' strategy.
It might be as simple as your message isn't getting to the right person. You said you have emailed and complained. Does that mean you clicked on the webmaster link and wrote a couple of sentences? Emailed/complained to the author? That's not going to go anywhere... I suggest you write a letter with company letterhead (preferably from your lawyer's firm) that asks them to stop. Mail it to their head lawyer if you can find him.. or to the "Legal Department" if you can't. Send it by certified mail, courier, or some other method where someone over there has to sign for it. That way you have a trail.. lawyers will know you're serious then.. otherwise you're just some crack pot. And when you're serious... they're going to have to be serious. No lawyer is going to throw something like that in the garbage... a webmaster or even the author... on the other hand with an email... delete.
I just graduated from grad school to become one of them.
First, sue. Well, maybe not sue, but notify the company's legal department that your images are being used in an infringing manner and your license terms. They will either stop using the images post haste (in this case, the shit will run down hill straight to the advertising firm that did it, and they'll jump) or pay you for the rights to your image.
Second, make your image license fees reasonable. You are not going to get 150k. Even some of the most famous images don't fetch that from a stock image library. Martin Luther King's image of him giving his famous speech in a national print campaign, with print billboards, etc? $50,000. Ghandi reading on the mat, same rates. Typical stock images of kids playing on the beach? License fees in the hundreds of dollars up to a few thousand if you're lucky.But that's generally if it's running in print and not online. The prices scale based on how famous the image is and what resolution they use. 8.5 x 11 at 300 dpi is a whole lot different than a 3 x 4" 96 dpi image. Really. That's how it's priced. So, send their legal departments a nicely worded letter, with print outs of the ads in question and a reasonable quote for the use of your image. I can definitely say that if you ask for $150k, they're going to laugh in your face and replace the image by tomorrow morning. If you ask for $500, they'll probably just cut you a check since it's cheaper to pay for it than to replace it.
If you think those rates seem low, I'm sorry, that's the way that market works. It's called the Long Tail (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html) and it looks like you've stumbled across the way to start building your own.
Reeses
This is not so much "My information shouldn't be free" but "stop using my works for profit when the license explicitly says for non-commercial use."
Works under non-commercial licenses fall outside the definition of free cultural works. For this reason, they are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons.
Posting as AC to protect the guilty.
I had the same problem. Fortunately DMCA take down notices are quite easy to do. I'll leave it to you Google that process, with one bit of advice, grab screen prints NOW.
Do you have a web site with standard rates published? If not, you might want to consider doing so.
Prepare a package with an invoice and the DMCA take down notice. Do not limit yourself to sending the notice the proper DMCA address (see below). Dig up their proper world facing contact addresses and use them, e.g. customer service, public relations, CEO offices, corporate counsel. Make sure to include a CC list so everyone knows who is in the loop. Include a polite but concise cover letter explaining that they are free to use the image if they pay the invoice, otherwise the DMCA take down notice applies. The proper DMCA take down notice goes to the web host, not the company so I entitled mine "SAMPLE" and used it as a fall back position in letters only to the company.
Don't be a jerk and pinky face ask for a billion dollars. 'Standard' rates vary wildly, but several hundred bucks is a good target.
The first answer you receive will probably be a contrite apology over the 'clerical error'. This is hogwash, but you might be happy with it, I dunno. Personally, a couple additional phone calls netted three hundred bucks AND the exposure of my work.
How about going public? For better effect, find a number - the more the better - of people in the same situation as you, get together, and publish the names of the perpetrators LOUDLY. No one likes to be called a thief in public, especially if it is true.
I get why this burns the poster, and they're welcome to that. DMCA the bastards.
My question goes more to the purpose/scope of the non-commercial CC license. What if someone puts it on their Photobucket account to share it (photobucket has ads)? What if someone posts it on a forum with an ad? The avenues of distribution where someone does not profit from the context are very narrow. I only raise the point because they (BB) are not making money off of the photo; ie: I doubt anyone went to BoingBoing that day to see that entirely unremarkable picture, they went there for the article, and merely saw the picture. Streisand Effect aside (Poster: good job on that, by the way), the picture there had no more draw than the ads themselves. Second issue: BoingBoing attributes the image to this guy's flickr account, and links to it. Seems like Quid Pro Quo.
Wired, on the other hand, certainly drew some people in with the photo. It's an amusing photo and they should have to pay for it.
Boing Boing, for their part, have just removed the offending image. Looks like your post answered its own question.
I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
It doesn't look like there is a good definition. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial.
At what point does the use become commercial?
Many people have google adwords on their blogs and they might get a few bucks each month because their traffic is so low. Say I have a blog that has adwords. If I use the picture to say "I'm on vacation," as it was in BoingBoing, is that still commercial? The picture isn't specifically used in an advertisement or to promote the blog or to specifically sell anything at the blog. But my blog does bring in a few bucks each month, so in that sense the entire blog is commercial.
Do you make a distinction between a commercial use and an non-commercial use within a site? Say I have a site discussing my passion for Fenton glassware. I don't make any money from the site. I use the picture. Ok, all non-commercial.
Now let's say I use my following as a blog to write a book about Fenton, but my blog still makes only a few bucks each month. Do all of my blog posts now become commercial and I have to remove the picture from a post that happened before I wrote my book? What if I also use the blog to talk about my pet rabbits, but I don't have a book about rabbits out. Can I use a non-commercial picture in a post about rabbits? Someone might read that post, then see that I wrote a book about Fenton, which brings in money for me.
Let's say I'm the CEO of Toyota. I can't use the picture in an ad in Car and Driver, that seems obvious(to me at least). Can I use it for an internal only company newsletter? I'm a commercial entity, but the use itself is non-commercial. Can I print it out to hang in the break room?
Taking a very brief read at the creative commons site, it looks like there isn't a good consensus about the definition. When you are writing a legal license for people to use, you shouldn't have to take a poll to decide what the definition of a word is, you put it in the license. Here's what they wrote at cc's wiki: "In 2008-09, Creative Commons commissioned a study from a professional market research firm to explore understandings of the terms “commercial use” and “noncommercial use” among Internet users when used in the context of content found online. " I think that's the wrong way to go about it. All it does is cause situations like this where the creator thought non-commercial meant one thing but the user thought it meant something else. How does the user know what the creator meant?
Here's the relevant definition (from CC ver. 3):
Is the use of the photo to illustrate a story "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage"? My own blog has ads on it, but those ads have never paid me enough to even meet the expenses of hosting the blog. Would I be using the image for "commercial advantage" if I posted it on my blog?
Worse, the phrase "commercial use" has a fairly standard meaning in photography law, as the use of the image basically in an advertisement. Thus, when the National Enquirer runs a photo of some celebrity, that use is an "editorial" use rather than a "commercial" use; it illustrates the editorial story. They still have to pay the photographer ("non-commercial use" by itself is hardly enough to allow a copyright violation), but they don't have to pay the subjects of the photo anything... even though the whole point of running the photo is to sell more copies of the Enquirer, a for-profit organization. But if they wanted to use the very same photo in an ad for, say, a watch company advertising in the Enquirer, then that ad would be a "commercial use" of the photo, and they would have to have the permission of the subjects of the photo to use it for that purpose. Media companies are VERY familiar with that distinction, so if they see a "non-commercial use only" clause, then they will automatically assume that just means that you can't use it in an actual ad.
So when the CC non-commercial clause is used, does that mean "commercial" versus "editorial" as the law has defined those concepts in an important area of photography law? Or does it mean something entirely different? The definition should be MUCH more clear. As a lawyer, I wouldn't have a problem representing BoingBoing here, and I'm sure the vagueness of the clause would at the VERY least allow them to get off with only paying a nominal charge for the use of the images, and may very well result in them not having to pay a dime.
Go rant at Lawrence Lessig and the lawyers who drew up the Creative Commons license for not writing clearer license terms.
Most people can't even give it away if they try and try they do. Giving it away is what CC is all about. If someone is stealing what you are doing that is very encouraging news and cause for celebration. You might consider producing as much of what people like to steal from you as you can while they still want to steal it from you. I wish I was in your shoes.
One day: "I DON'T BELIEVE IN IMAGINARY PROPERTY!!"
The other day: "YOU VIOLATED CLAUSE 5-B SUBSECTION A SENTENCE ONE OF MY LICENSING AGREEMENT, PREPARE TO DIE CORPORATION!"
On the assumption the objection may be from the photographer--we haven't heard from them directly, as far I as know, though Cory's on vacation and not available--we've removed the CC-licensed image. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. We haven't really thought through CC non-com stuff on pages with advertising at BB as a matter of policy--it's on each poster's conscience. But I know that Cory often seeks permission directly from photographers on flickr, and that other editors do likewise. Thanks, any many apologies if we have err.
boingboing has removed it and one of the editors put this note on the original article:
"Update: We've removed the CC-licensed image as it appears the photographer is unhappy with our usage of it here. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. - Rob"
Wax on, wax off baby!
Did he register the copyright in a timely fashion? If not, he can't get statutory damages.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You can send them a DMCA take down notice. You may want to consult your lawyer to make sure this is applicable, but it's by far the most effective tool you have.
BoingBoing has removed the image and still includes a link back to this article and also to his original flickr page.
My CEO boss told me to download and use whatever images we were unlikely to be successfully sued over. Power is the only language some people understand. I say sue them.
If you did not officially copyright your image, then you can only sue for actual realized damages. Just putting a license on something is virtually worthless. If you had officially copyrighted your image with the USPTO then you can sue for statutory damages that are big enough to get their attention.
But seriously how much do you think you image is *really* worth? If you had sent your image to getty images, istockphoto, etc. you could be making royalties on it. You'd probably get somewhere in the range of $5 (istockphoto) to $1000 (getty) for perpetual worldwide rights.
So their lawyers can pretty clearly indicate in court that your "actual damages" are somewhere between $5 and $1000 and that is all you are legally entitled to.
So the moral of the story is if you want to protect your work, officially copyright it. It's $35. You could probably submit your entire collection of images for that fee.
>"What can I do?"
Simply re-license them for CC-BY 3.0. If this is not your primary way of making money for your household, let people reuse your images any way they want to. That's what I do. All my videos and pictures are CC-BY 3.0. The only ones that are not CC at all are the ones involving music videos for local rock bands (videos I shot for them), which I don't have the power to CC-BY them since I don't own the copyright.
But anything else *I* created and own, it's all out there for free. Do the same, and you won't have the problem of people stealing your images.
However, if these pics are your primary way of making a living, then yes, sue them.
You need to make up your mind. You either want people to be able to use the pictures or you don't. Do you want to make money from your pictures? If the answer is yes, then you don't put them under a license that allows people to use them for free. If the answer is no, then you let people use the pictures and stop bitching about it. It's really that simple.
If you make the pictures available for free and someone else is making money, so what?
...damages.
You tried asking them to stop abusing you, and they didn't. If it you find it sufficiently objectionable, you sue them for damages.
It's worth noting, in spite of likely getting modded down, that this is why 99 cents for illegally downloading a song is not reasonable, and $BIGNUM isn't entirely nuts. If the cost of getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar is just the price of a cookie, why ever pay for the cookie? There's no deterrent effect save for one's on morals. If the choice is instead licensing a picture for $X, or having a small chance of getting caught and sued for $1000X, you're more likely to be paid for your work.
1- Determine the scope of useage- how many copies of it were made (like one image, put into a thousand brochure / instance, how much they are charging per instance, and if there is a chance of future printing. In the case of digital, then determine how many hits on their site where your image is being used. 2- Determine a fee based upon how much usage, and make it on the high side. 3- Send the company an invoice, pay in full within 30 days of billing date, with late fee for past due, along with a copy of the CC notification. Add in a note that says to the affect of you will not charge them a late fee for time used before billing, but you want to be paid in full within 30 days. Include a note that says failure to respond to the invoice will be grounds for going to collections. If they do respond, but do not pay, re- invoice, (include the previous late fee, PLUS late fees from the original time of usage, and a fee for future use - this can be pretty hefty) this time with a 15 day notice, and another late fee, and a warning that non payment will result in legal action for unauthorized use of your works and failure to pay usage fees. You do not have to send them any more bills, etc., after that 15 day period. 4- Then go to court. If you plan on doing this one company at a time, then you can probably just go to small claims. But you have an option to bill all businesses that used your work, then have an attorney handle all the lawsuits, and see if the attorney will add his fees on top of what you are asking for. This is where the offending business sits up and takes notice, because suddenly, their mis- appropriation of your work have snowballed into a 5 figure lawsuit. But be careful, and make sure you have given the business proper notice and have your ducks in a row, when it comes to claiming your work as ours, and any CC laws applicable.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
The title says it all. What is the purpose of employing a CC license and publishing the content if you are not prepared to defend the licensing terms against violations? The license can only discourage other entities from exploiting your work. The only way to enforce the terms you have chosen is to, well, ENFORCE it. Otherwise, don't publish it online and don't CC it, and your problem is solved.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/27/gone-fission----see.html Update: We've removed the CC-licensed image as it appears the photographer is unhappy with our usage of it here. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. Please accept our apologies. - Rob
I think a couple of people may have already said this, but it depends on how you define Commercial. The original question seems to involve just a picture that appears on a page with ads. oh my!! If that's the case, then I'm changing my cc license to allow commercial use. Ridiculous. Was actually reading an article claiming its BEST to allow commercial use... can't seem to find it now. Looks like the NC really is too restrictive if you WANT people to use your stuff.
The Internet was designed to allow downloads of pictures on web pages. Click right click and choose "save as" but some Javascripts block that ability but clever people will get around it or use someone else's script to get around it.
My profile pictures have been under a CC license and other FOSS licenses but still get stolen since 1999 and used on fake accounts pretending to be me, or selling something, or photoshopped, etc. I was told the same thing when I went to lawyers, not much you can do about it. Plus I don't have the money to hire a lawyer as I am poor and on disability.
Someone just stole a profile picture of me in 2007 that only existed in a deactivated Facebook account that I was told nobody could see, and I deleted it off my profile anyway. Someone got on a Google Group group and other groups posted I was gay and then had a link to my father's web site and business that ruined it, so his business is getting ready to close, but he had a brain tumor develop like Ted Kenedy had and might die soon. My mother was going to take over the business but now due to lack of customers has to close it and then maybe sell her house because of the denial of income and live in a spare room in our house. He also said some other stuff and even if he had bad spelling posted even more untrue stuff about me with the profile picture. Not much I can do about it, Google refused to do anything.
Yes apparently if someone wants to they can steal your profile picture and fake it was you and get away with it and post untrue stuff about you, and not a darn thing you could do. I worked on Wiki sites over the past 5 or 6 years and while not an admin as a user I monitored Wiki articles and reverted the blankings, vandalism, and the "X is gay" type stuff about people nobody ever heard of before. So I guess I made a few enemies, one used a script-kiddie script to hack Facebook and steal the picture, photoshop it to make me look worse and post it over many Google Groups. This has happened to me since 1999 and in some cases I can get the fake profile and other stuff removed by proving to the web site admins who I am and that the account is not me but pretending to be me and cite a part of their TOS to remove it. Either Google ignored me or they don't care if someone steals my profile picture and uses my real name to post untrue stuff about me because they don't care about stuff like that and stuff like that only makes them more popular via the controversy and thus more people use Google and they make more profits just like any other mega-corp, like the one using your photos in their advertising and stuff and violating your privacy, CC license, and stealing your identity to sell stuff.
Oh by the way that is why I first started to use Orion Blastar and other pen names so at least if they steal my OB or other pen name profiles since it is not my real name, nobody that knows me would care. I tried to email the people doing it using the fake profile and fake email they made, and they reply using a Tor proxy to hide their IP that if I don't like it I can kill myself or some other thing, so trying to reason and use logic on a faker who thinks with their emotions will not work.
But I am trying to limit the pen names I use, and might even retire this Orion Blastar one. But I think everyone should use a nick name, pen name, handle like the old BBS days. Posting your real info on Facebook including address and phone number and the public can see it (privacy settings get reset on some accounts on Facebook due to bugs and sloppy code so even if set to friends only or even deactivated somehow others can still find it via the FacebookF*cker hacker/cracker script as a script-kiddie, etc.
I also found out that some scammers are stealing photos of Solider in Iraq and Afganistian to pretend to be them with fake accounts and target women looking for a man via dating sites and manipulate or trick them into giving them money, or info they can use to steal her identity. In fact this has gone on for a long time as well.
Back
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of US copyright law differs from yours...
The bad news, about that $150,000: you're not going to get it. Statutory damages are only awardable if your work was registered with the Copyright Office prior to the infringement. Without registration, you're eligible for actual damages, basically just how much money the infringer made off of your work. Unless Wired regularly pays $1 per copy per image (they don't) then you're not going to get that much either.
The good news, about those DMCA notices: you can skip them and go straight to a lawsuit if you want. DMCA notices are for the infringer's service provider; their ISP, or their web host, or the blog they commented on, or whatever. The service provider gets a chance to pass the notice on, then cut off service for the infringed work if the notice is unchallenged, without becoming liable for infringement themselves. But Wired isn't a service provider for its own employees. If they're copying your work without permission, they're already guilty, no backsies.
Not taking sides here, but it is remarkable that removing the offending content and putting up a note that's just shy of an apology would make the average person relent, whereas if this were the MPAA or RIAA they'd still sue you for having violated the copyright at all, as in many file sharing lawsuits.
Information doesn't want to be free.
Some people want other people's information to be free, but that's about as far as it goes.
"Information wants to be free" in the same way that a large rock being rolled up a hill, "wants" to roll down it again. Of course neither the rock, nor the data, actually wants anything - it's just a way of characterizing their typical behavior in those circumstances.
It's simply the natural behavior of the thing in the environment in which it resides. Information "wants" to be free because, despite efforts to restrict the flow of information, it only takes a relatively small effort to get that information out. Information tends toward freedom because it's in an environment full of people who would be happy to disperse it. Information tends toward low economic value because it's trivial to copy it. The original meaning of the phrase was more along the lines of the latter - describing how "information wants to be expensive" because it's useful, but "information wants to be free" because it's easy to disperse. Both affect the dynamic "value" of the information in an economic sense.
Bow-ties are cool.
The use of "want" in a technical discussion to describe statistical or physical tendencies is not unprecedented. Nor is it particularly anthropomorphic.
For instance, discussing diffusion across a barrier leads to a statement like "the system wants to reach equilibrium" being a concise summary.
There is at least one definition of "want" that doesn't require consciousness (from dict.die.net/want) [quote]2: have need of: "This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner"[/quote]; so don't get too tied up in your smug failure to comprehend the English language.
So anyway, "information wants to be free" in the sense that spreads essentially without diffusion. It does spread with some error, as in your limited understanding of the word 'want' etc. but the factual concentration doesn't diminish at the source at the time of spread.
Anybody who has ever tried to stop or counter a rumor knows just how free information wants to be. Its downright contagious. Companies are constantly trying to hold back and strengthen their information dikes. We even call the secret or unintended release of information "a leak". Water wants to spread, and information wants to spread.
The statement "information wants to be free", as quoted, seems intended to infer that information wants to have no price. _That_ is something I have no direct opinion on since there is no inherent evidence that information has any cost bias (for or against) at all.
I have always taken "information wants to be free" to mean that information wants to escape its confines. This is an inherent truth IMHO, because I understand "monkey see, monkey do" and I have watched rumors spread, and I have a DOD clearance and spend a non-trivial part of each day guarding against the unintentional spread of information, and I have been trained to be aware of that tendency to spread.
If you don't believe that information wants to spread, I suggest you leave an iPhone prototype, or sheaf of papers marked "classified", unattended in a bar some time. 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The picture has already been removed from the "offending" blog post on Boing Boing. I don't know the exact timeline, but I would be willing to bet it was pulled within an hour of the story going live on Slashdot. My guess is asking politely would have had a similar effect, as some folks *do* respect the wishes of content creators without requiring invocation the litigation boogeyman.
Having looked into doing some work recently that would involve a number of things under various CC licenses recently, I can say that some parts of it are really vague. People have already mentioned the "is it commercial use if I have ads on my page?" question. Then there's questions like, if I make an iphone app incorporating some CC-licensed work, and I charge $0.99 for it to help recoup my costs ($100 for the developer stuff, at least), is that commercial use? (Answer: Possibly, but I'm not completely convinced)
What if the app is basically a glorified database browser, and I use a CC-SA licensed picture. Is my app a derivative work of that picture, and thus must I share the source?
CC-SA also makes an exception for encyclopedic-type data and presentation, as long as the licensed work is unmodified. If that glorified database is a copy of wikipedia, does the entire database have to be unmodified from their database dump? What about individual pages? If I remove the wikipedia navigational links on the side of the page, is that considered modification? Or are we only talking about the "body" of the text? How about if I keep the whole database stored, but modify the text as it's displayed? Is my app *then* a derivative work? Even if the app was independent of wikipedia and could show (and modify) anything mediawiki-based that it was paired with?
Ugh.
I would recommend watermarking the images with your own signature text or something... if you are really concerned about commercial usage of your image. Licenses sometimes are not enough, since they only give you the right to sue.
"I don't care enough to actually do the working of typing out a DMCA notice or to sue, so instead I'm going to whine on Slashdot."
Advice: on VPS providers
I've just had it with CC, copyright, and IP issues. Is it time to just let it all go? I create for a living, and I get my pay up front - or before initial release - for everything that I do. Most things I write I just throw out there...many of the things I draw or photograph, same thing. I get paid a fair price at release for everything else. After that, it's free to the world, out there, and whatever happens happens. This seems like a sane way to live, instead of always worrying about infringements, lawsuits, and other related IP anxieties. But I'm well over 50 now, so issues like this just don't seem so serious as they once were.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
I prefer the hands-on touch you only get with hired goons.
...and they'll remove it in no time!
If you aren't looking for the creative commons licensing then you will probably miss it. There is an email link on the wired article that might be an easier way to get it taken down than trying to slap them with a DMCA notice but if they give you crap then hit em with the DMCA.
The Internet is for distributing things. Pictures. Words. Movies. Music. Software. Whatever.
The point is, once it is on the Internet, Google might index it. Then if I am looking for a picture of something and I can find it with Google I can use it. Just grab it and do whatever the heck I want with it - it was there, so now it is MINE. Be glad if the person "takes" their own copy rather than just linking back to yours.
Same thing goes for anything else digital. Once it is out there people are going to just take and take and take.
Have you had people ask you to make changes for them yet? No? It's coming. With the sense of entitlement that the Internet brings you are going to get all sorts of silly requests. Sort of like "Nice photograph, but I think there is too much green in it. Can you fix it for me?" The idea that maybe your creative work is yours is offensive and discriminatory, maybe even racist.
So you don't want to share? Well then, keep it off the Internet. Everything there is for sharing.
bwaa bwa bwa, bwa bwa bwaaa
dirty deeds, done dirt cheap
dirty deeds, done dirt cheap
dirty deeds, done dirt cheap
Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap, yeah
Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap
Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap
Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap
Concrete shoes
Cyanide
T.N.T
Done dirt cheap
Oohh, neckties
Contracts
High voltage
Done dirt cheap, yaaa...
No. No one pays BoingBoing because this image is there. They're not offering it for sale, or charging to view it. But BoingBoing benefits because they're not out of pocket, yet they can show the image. In the end, more money in BoingBoing's pocket because their status quo as a content site is maintained, without recompensing the artist. An indirect financial benefit consequent to the artist's work.
Likewise, typically no one pays an individual for stealing music for their own use; but the individual benefits because they're not out of pocket, yet they have the product. The individual's status quo as a "hip, I heard that" and a "happy, I enjoy that" individual is maintained, without recompensing the artist. In the end, considering the music is in hand, more money in pocket: an indirect financial benefit consequent to the artist's work.
There is zero ethical difference between these two; in both cases, the artist creates, the art is used, and the artist's payment is weaseled out of. There is zero ethical difference between taking a digital product against the producer's wishes and stealing a vase out of my company showroom.
When someone creates something, it is theirs to decide what to do with it. If they want to sell it, as a consumer, you get to ethically vote with your wallet: Buy, and support them; don't buy, and don't support them. However, if you take the a product that is not offered freely without meeting their terms... that's just stealing.
It's mildly entertaining to watch the excuse train pull up and unload the same tired arguments, but in the end, it is stealing. BoingBoing is no less and no more guilty of stealing here than any cluetard who steals commercial music of software products. The degree that they are financially and reasonably liable is probably very little (same as an individual downloader) because odds are no one can show that they did any more or less business because that image was there... but ethically, they shit the bed just as badly as someone stealing jewelry.
If you want free pictures, you can start by going and visiting my flickr account. I don't use CC; I claim copyright only so I can specify that the rights are handed out, and allow unlimited use of any kind. If you want free software, go where the software is offered for free. I write free software, too (really free, not GPL [free unless you redistribute, then must do what we tell you.]) There are many more like me.
If free is your price, then that's where you should be looking: Products that are intended to be free for the uses you will make of them and explicitly say so. If you want a product that the creator deems only available for a specific exchange, either (A) make that exchange or (B) become a thief. There are no other options. You can, of course, add the "I'll make excuses" flag, but you're still firmly in column A or B.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, he thinks he's talking to his own sockpuppets.
AFAIK there are now statutory damages in the USA on copyright violations. A few hundred to thousand dollars per infringement, and that is how the RIAA adds up their huge claims against file sharers:
One infringement per track, and thus a directory full of shared stuff is reason for a lawsuit over $100.000.
If you consider suing them, these sums may actually make it worthwhile (depending on the number of works they have filched). But definitely ask a lawyer first.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I had a similar run in with Rhizome, the uber-hipster online art journal, around 5 years ago. They published a photo I had used for artist promotion which I had appropriated from an old IBM computer mainframe ad. A women who worked there found my promo photo on the Interwebz and used it as an opening picture for some dumbass article she wrote. When I confronted her about it she gave me some clueless arrogant hipster-speak about the photo being open source because she found it online. I wouldn't have minded if she had given attribution but it was coupled with an article that had nothing to do with me or my work and she never asked if it were OK to use it. Needless to say she is no longer at Rhizome. May her hipster-ass rot in soccer mom hell.
Statutory damages are not available for copyright infringement unless you registered the work prior to the commencement of the infringement. In this case, I'm guessing that you didn't register the pictures in question. Therefore, you would not be able to sue for $150,000 unless that represented actual damages. Despite the name, "actual damages" includes both harm to you (such as lost revenues) and disgorgement of revenue attributable to the infringement.
Needless to say, both types of actual damages can be hard to prove. This may be part of why your requests have not been taken seriously. If you really want to get the attention of one of these organizations, you may want to try registering your copyright and then referencing that registration in your notice to them. In my experience, people take these things more seriously if you can refer to a specific registration.
Ads are allowed on non-commercial Creative Commons. They are not violating your license unless the user has to pay to see the content.
I would think there would be some that would take the case for free and give you a share of whatever is collected.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
hey everyone -- it's my picture of "Cory's Hammock" that appeared on boingboing: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/27/gone-fission----see.html i release most of my pics and academic writing under CC-BY-NC-SA, which is the license that was reproduced on the post. but when i put these pics up on Flickr after Cory sent the hammock [yes, there is some irony there. it is his hammock!] i gave him permission to use them if he wished. and he has. and it's ok with me. as some of the comments in this thread note, the definition of "non-commercial" is the most problematic thing about CC licenses: see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial for background from the Creative Commons. however, in this case [and IP infringement decisions are based on specific circumstances] that definition is inconsequential, because my permission was granted. remember, CC licenses are non-exclusive, and the same content released under CC can also be licensed in other places in other ways. whoever started this thread didn't check with me [i'm not that hard to find] or with BoingBoing about the circumstances under which my image was used. my picture was 'Used with permission". i've suggested that the rights statement on BoingBoing be updated to make that clear. thanks for your help, everyone, but this damsel is not in distress! /jt
Information wants to be free.
Copyright wasn't meant to allow people to make money off old work for ever.. get a job!
They didn't deprive you of your copy of the pictures so you haven't lost anything and they haven't stolen anything.
Did I forget any?
Ah. now I understand. You simply wanted to use Slashdot to promote your services for free. Well done. How you could talk about suing BB for use of a photo of a hammock belonging to a BB owner is totally beyond me and I regret the time I put into answering your questions below.
1. Re BoingBoing, do nothing. They took it down and it was a mistake.
2. There may be other companies that also made mistakes about the license and don't have money to pay you. Anyway, you are not going to make 100,000 dollars so forget that. Did you have a visible pricelist for commercial use? If not maybe after the lawsuit you might make a few bucks as if it was work for hire. But I doubt it. I recommend if you want to pressure a megacorp, make sure all communications are documented in writing and get a lawyer and have the lawyer's office write a series of letters to their legal department, etc. Caveat about coming to Slashdot for legal advice.
3. Make a site if you don't have one for selling your photography commercially. You could also put your work into a photo agency.
As it happens I'm making a site for a few photographers to show their portfolios. If you are a pro, then try that and stop putting your photos into difficult to understand creative commons system. The point is, Put photo into CC noncommercial -> Wait for people to use it commercially by mistake or evilly -> Sue -> Profit is not a smart business plan.
4. You could consider the uses as your loss leader and part of your portfolio and then go to an ad agency or otherwise try to sell your photos yourself.
5. Also note you can sell exclusivity for a certain territory or business area.
Ah. now I understand. You simply wanted to use Slashdot to promote your services for free.
In the post you replied to, jtrant wrote: "whoever started this thread didn't check with me [i'm not that hard to find] or with BoingBoing about the circumstances under which my image was used." The AC who submitted this story had nothing to do with the picture used at BoingBoing.
I'm the Boing Boing editor who posted the image that the OP claims violated the Creative Commons license.
Read the OP closely: he's not saying that it was *his* image I took -- rather, that he was affronted on behalf of the photographer.
Except that the photographer in this case is my friend and colleague Jennifer Trant, and I used the photo with her permission, and then reproduced the entire CC license so that other people would know what terms they could use it on.
So, anonymous poster: how about the next time you decide to smear someone for infringing Creative Commons in the name of defending someone's copyrights, you actually make sure that the creator hasn't authorized the use?
Hmm...
Those who are astute may see a connection between the reason behind this slashdot article/thread and the hub-bub from ASCAP about how Creative Commons is "evil".
Astroturfing anyone?
So it's "support IP day" on slashdot is it? Do we all have to go and delete those BitTorrent games we know we're never going to pay for now?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Why are you asking "what can i do?" When your lawyer told your dumb ass what to do? Could it be you want someone else to do your dirty work ?? lol
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ handles these issues.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire.... the A-Team.
"Used with Permission". Boingboing (neh, Cory) should have mentioned that they had the photographers permission in addition to the license terms. In fact, they could have used those 3 words and the photographers name in lieu of the license terms. But being good web 2.0 netizens they wanted to properly cite and share the wealth that comes with crediting the photographer / linking to their work / etc. If you have permission - let a brotha' know.