Whether or not you like it (most photographers don't), there's probably no more blatant case showing the power of the Fair Use provision of copyright law.
I was forwarded the link to the discussion that has ensued on slashdot, so I signed up for an account to post this response.
After addressing the specific issues, I will also post what I think is the solution to the problem. I DO want to see CC succeed--and what I propose in the end is a good start in that direction. But to understand it, you need to frame things into context.
My three blog posts tried to make it clear that the problem is NOT the CC itself, but the context in which it is trying to be applied. I took great pains to articulate my great enthusiasm and support for CC in all other contexts, that I am not advocating paid-for photographs, nor do I think that CC is bad for photographers.
Despite its intent, the CC makes more companies vulnerable than they were before the CC. At the same time, it also fails to provide the very protections that it was originally intended to give copyright holders. Worse, this creates a set of conditions where the domino effect can stain the CC's perceived value in other areas where it is more appropriate, and that would be a very bad thing.
> When people don't use the license > correctly, or don't obey it's terms, that's a problem with the person who > is guilty, not the license itself.
The question isn't whether anyone's done anything wrong, but the scale and magnitude in which the infringement claims can arise, regardless of whether the photographer (through fraud) or the publisher (through infringement) is doing anything wrong. CC has nothing whatsoever to address this, thereby providing the means for even completely compliant users of CC-licensed images to get duped, and for publishers to abuse the wishes of the photographers that submitted the images..
CC is more harmful than helpful because it gives people the impression that they can use the image without risk because the copyright holder has pre-approved the use. Well, that ain't necessarily true, and if the CC didn't exist, people wouldn't be lead so easily and quickly to this assumption.
My blog entries pointed out that companies should protect themselves by confirming the ownership and usability of copyrighted works before they use them. But the CC doesn't encourage that behavior--in fact, it subtly _discourages_ it because it gives a false sense of security to publishers that they don't need to.
Now, if that weren't bad enough, what do you get when you put mass misunderstandings and confusion together with malcious people who see deep pockets? Fertile ground gaming the system. And, as pointed out by one lawyer's email to me, that's already happening. And we can't measure the scale of this problem because no one on either side of the fence has incentive to come out with it, and everyone has incentive to settle before it gets to court, where it could become public. Do we need to know the scale before we realize it needs to be fixed? I don't think so, especially when the fix is available.
And here's where we really get to the meat of the problem:
No matter where the user of the photo gets it, it's incumbant on him assure that the copy he has HAS the CC license! And, there is no way to do that reliably, short of contacting the owner and asking. That in itself obviates one of the objectives of the CC, whose very intent was facilitate the faster and freer flow of creative content. Just because the Flickr site _says_ that a given photo has a CC doesn't mean that the copyright holder put it there or assigned the CC. And if various sites pick up that copy of the image, they are only perpetuating the distribution of potential misinformation.
And worst of all, because there is no verification process when the CC is ever assigned, nor a central registry to assure that the image being put under the CC _is authentic,_ then the conditions are ripe for abuse. Because the licensee BEARS ALL RESPONSIBILIT
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not you like it (most photographers don't), there's probably no more blatant case showing the power of the Fair Use provision of copyright law.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/12/05/arts/20071206_RICHARDPRINCE_SLIDESHOW_index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html
I was forwarded the link to the discussion that has ensued on slashdot,
so I signed up for an account to post this response.
After addressing the specific issues, I will also post what I think is
the solution to the problem. I DO want to see CC succeed--and what I
propose in the end is a good start in that direction. But to understand
it, you need to frame things into context.
My three blog posts tried to make it clear that the problem is NOT the CC
itself, but the context in which it is trying to be applied. I took great
pains to articulate my great enthusiasm and support for CC in all other
contexts, that I am not advocating paid-for photographs, nor do I think
that CC is bad for photographers.
Despite its intent, the CC makes more companies vulnerable than they
were before the CC. At the same time, it also fails to provide the very
protections that it was originally intended to give copyright holders.
Worse, this creates a set of conditions where the domino effect can stain
the CC's perceived value in other areas where it is more appropriate,
and that would be a very bad thing.
> When people don't use the license
> correctly, or don't obey it's terms, that's a problem with the person who
> is guilty, not the license itself.
The question isn't whether anyone's done anything wrong, but the scale
and magnitude in which the infringement claims can arise, regardless
of whether the photographer (through fraud) or the publisher (through
infringement) is doing anything wrong. CC has nothing whatsoever to
address this, thereby providing the means for even completely compliant
users of CC-licensed images to get duped, and for publishers to abuse
the wishes of the photographers that submitted the images..
CC is more harmful than helpful because it gives people the impression
that they can use the image without risk because the copyright holder
has pre-approved the use. Well, that ain't necessarily true, and if
the CC didn't exist, people wouldn't be lead so easily and quickly to
this assumption.
My blog entries pointed out that companies should protect themselves
by confirming the ownership and usability of copyrighted works before
they use them. But the CC doesn't encourage that behavior--in fact,
it subtly _discourages_ it because it gives a false sense of security
to publishers that they don't need to.
Now, if that weren't bad enough, what do you get when you put mass
misunderstandings and confusion together with malcious people who see
deep pockets? Fertile ground gaming the system. And, as pointed out by
one lawyer's email to me, that's already happening. And we can't measure
the scale of this problem because no one on either side of the fence
has incentive to come out with it, and everyone has incentive to settle
before it gets to court, where it could become public. Do we need to
know the scale before we realize it needs to be fixed? I don't think so,
especially when the fix is available.
And here's where we really get to the meat of the problem:
No matter where the user of the photo gets it, it's incumbant on him
assure that the copy he has HAS the CC license! And, there is no way
to do that reliably, short of contacting the owner and asking. That in
itself obviates one of the objectives of the CC, whose very intent was
facilitate the faster and freer flow of creative content. Just because
the Flickr site _says_ that a given photo has a CC doesn't mean that
the copyright holder put it there or assigned the CC. And if various
sites pick up that copy of the image, they are only perpetuating the
distribution of potential misinformation.
And worst of all, because there is no verification process when the
CC is ever assigned, nor a central registry to assure that the image
being put under the CC _is authentic,_ then the conditions are ripe for
abuse. Because the licensee BEARS ALL RESPONSIBILIT