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.
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.
...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
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
You're missing the point. It's not about "being nice"; if you were really being nice you'd just release it into the public domain. If you're not willing to enforce the terms of a license, then it's the same as not using one. You can moan, "But I'm using Creative Commons!" all you want, but unless you sue, from the corporation's perspective it's the same as if the material had been public domain, since they're not seeing any consequences. Submitter is trying to have it both ways, all of the protections of copyright/licenses with none of the effort. It doesn't work that way.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Wow, okay, I'm an idiot. Ever do that thing where you genuinely forget you're running adblock?
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
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.
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!
and somebody on BoingBoing was monitoring or got alerted to the problem. The photo has been removed with an apology.
"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"
Because the people we hear about who get sued for copying music are not doing it for money, whereas the people in the article are large companies trying to actively profit off the images in question. I doubt you'll find many people who are arguing that copyright violation for commercial gain is OK, which is the direct analogy to the situation outlined in this article.
I am curious: If this is wrong, why is copying music (which is under a much more restrictive license than Creative Commons) not? Is it a "because I didn't make money off of it" thing?
Genuine question here, not trying to troll or flamebait.
Most people on /. probably would not say that full blown piracy is OK. Most of the issues with copyright law brought up here are with specific abuses of copyright, restrictive DRM, attacks on fair use, even using DMCA to attack free speech, etc. Even the hypocrisy of the music labels claiming that they are just trying to protect the rights of artists that they themselves are not paying is fair game.
There is a big difference between wanting to crack DRM for music you legally purchased so it can be played by another device or making another Downfall parody and pirating music for the explicit purpose of making bootleg CD's that you sell for profit.
What they are doing in this case is piracy for the explicit purpose of making profit.
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
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?