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."

Re:Other Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's the whole point of CC. The licenses are permission. If you have to get permission anyway, then what the hell is the point of CC in the first place?

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[keesh]

Requiring registration will only screw over the little guy.

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to screwing over the guy when someone decides they made a terrible licensing mistake and want to erase the past as in this case?

Sorry, copyrights and patents are for promoting the arts and the sciences. If you're doing neither, you deserve neither. This post does neither, and should not be copyrighted. If you can't afford the registration fee (which should be kept to a token fee of $5 or so for the purpose of showing that you care, not for the government's profit) then flip burgers between slitting your wrists and writing poetry about how empty you are.

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[jamesh]

So... what if I cut and paste what you just posted into the copyright site, pay $2, and register it as mine? Suddenly it doesn't seem so simple. You have to consider:

. How do I prove that the material I am trying to copyright is mine to copyright? If I cut and pasted it off of a web site, especially one that wasn't indexed somewhere, how could they tell?

. What happens when I sue you for posting my copyrighted material on slashdot? How do you prove that you originally wrote it in the first place, and that you didn't copy it from me? (I put it on my web site and modified the datestamps to make it look like it predated yours by a few days)

This alone would make a system where $2 is nowhere near enough to cover costs. And in fact if I didn't like something you'd said on slashdot, for $2 I could trivially register it as mine and issue slashdot with a cease-and-desist letter.

I think it's time to raise some funds and buy out all the law firms that specialise in copyright law. That way, everytime there is a dispute, my superfirm gets revenue. Even better, because you won't find a non-superfirm copyright lawyer who's any good at all, both sides will be represented by my superfirm lawyers and we can drag it out for long enough to suck the money out of everyone.

I'll be rich!!!

Re:Other Considerations

[TheWanderingHermit]

I'll embellish. If I were going to use photos published under CC in a work where they could not easily be replaced or which was going to be sold or used professionally, I would contact the author. Yes, they're under CC, but I'd like to be sure the author put them there himself, and someone wasn't "getting back" at him or something similar and I'd want to make sure he's not vacillating about it. If I use a photo as an establishing shot and later the CC license is revoked, and the video ends up doing well in the DVD market, it can be a mess dealing with the person about it. It's easier, in the long run, to double check and make sure what I'm using is intentionally under CC and that I can expect it to remain there. It also does a great job of the old "CYA" because if I contact them in writing, with a SASE enclosed, I get something back in writing, signed by them, that goes into my files and which I can use as proof if questions arise.

Once you've bumped into a few glitches on things that are supposed to be obvious but aren't, you realize it is much easier to CYA now than to SYA (Save YA) later. An ounce of prevention and such...

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[TheWanderingHermit]

Spoken like someone who uses copyrighted material, but certainly not like someone who creates it.

There are advantages to something automatically being considered copyrighted once it is created. Granted, those advantages are only for the creator, but without help like that, there is less motivation to create.

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[EvanED]

If you can't afford the registration fee (which should be kept to a token fee of $5 or so for the purpose of showing that you care, not for the government's profit) then flip burgers between slitting your wrists and writing poetry about how empty you are.

$5 for what? If I'm a photographer on a photo shoot and take 500 pictures (no clue if this is an accurate number, but I do know that they take *a lot*, especially now with digital), is that $5 for the whole bunch, or do I have to pay $2500 (or pick out my favorite 10, pay $50, and destroy the others)?

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What happens when I sue you for posting my copyrighted material on slashdot? How do you prove that you originally wrote it in the first place, and that you didn't copy it from me? (I put it on my web site and modified the datestamps to make it look like it predated yours by a few days).

How is that any different from the current system?

Your whole argument about establishing authorship applies just as much today as it would under a registration scheme. At least with a registration scheme, there is the date of filing to use as a reference. With the current system it could easily devolve into he-said/she-said.

Re:Welcome to Copyright!

[JesseMcDonald]

without help like that, there is less motivation to create

I'm sure that the lack of million-dollar commissions also results in "less motivation to create" -- the point being that, while the purpose of granting copyright monopolies is ostensibly to encourage the sciences and "useful" arts, one does eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, both in terms of the amount of art and science created, and in terms of the utility of that increased amount. There is no need for the government to supply unlimited motivation, and it would, in fact, be counter-productive for it to do so. In my opinion we are already long past the point were the social benefits of copyrights and patents can be said to outweigh the costs.

Re:Other Considerations

[TheWanderingHermit]

If by that you mean that, when somebody quite clearly says something in unambiguous language in a license vetted by top lawyers, I believe them to actually mean it, then yes, I'm a literalist.

No. I mean someone who is so focused on the exact words that they think real life works the same way. In other words, someone that thinks saying something a certain way makes it so, as opposed to someone who uses words and language to describe the world as it is. Contracts and licenses are one thing, discussing human behavior is another. If you have trouble separating this, read a dozen Sherlock Holmes stories for a bit of insight. While the great detective thought and behaved very logically, a major part of his brilliance was the understanding of how illogically and passionately people behaved.

Oh, I totally know that. But how is getting an additional something in writing prevents this. You can be sued for anything without cause, remember?

Ah, here's a great example of the above point: the difference between the nice, neat world that exists in theory and the diverse and sometimes messy one that exists in the world that contains humans. If you've gone through the effort of contacting a person, even with just a letter that took less than 3 minutes to type up, then they are much more likely to "warm up" to you and keep a positive opinion of you. By contacting them, even though their work is licensed under CC, you are showing a level of respect for them. Yes, they can still file a suit, but 1) they have had a personal communication with me at that point, and I'm no longer just a faceless name. 2) They will likely remember specifically giving me permission to use their work and not want to take action. 3) They also remember that I have signed papers they sent me, and are aware they don't have a leg to stand on.

Humans are emotional beings first, and logical only 2nd or 3rd. For example, I knew a friend in Amway who was sure she'd get rich. I showed her a set of numbers that proved a large part of the profit was not in selling the products, but in selling the CDs to people like her. She had the IQ of a genius (literally) and knew Math well, but didn't want to believe that what they were telling her was not true. What's the point and why am I saying this? People do not always behave logically, but if one takes time to understand people and their passions and what drives different types of people, one can reduce one's problems quite significantly.

One time I needed to use shots of a state building in a project I was producing. I could have easily shot from the street and used all the footage without ever talking to the state. Instead I took some time to find out who the person was in charge of that building and talked with him. It took less than 20 minutes to track him down and talk with him. This was, btw, not long after 9/11, and people were still paranoid. I told him what I was doing, why I wanted the shot, and let the conversation digress into how our state is encouraging more commercial video and film production. He started to see it from the point of view that agreeing to what I was doing was helping a small business in the state and ultimately helping the state itself in terms of commerce. It may not seem like much, but then was I was shooting, I noticed the state troopers in the area (yes, I was near the state capitol, where troopers would come through from time to time) watching me, then eventually coming up to me. I gave him the name of the man I talked to and his office number. He checked, and walked away within less than 3 minutes, which was valuable time I needed for shooting, since it was during magic hour.

I didn't have to call for permission. I would likely have been able to talk the trooper into letting me keep shooting, but I can't be sure, especially since that was so soon after 9/11. A few minutes ahead of time, talking to an amiable bureaucrat, saved me the time I needed when I needed it (magic hour, btw, is about 45 minutes during sunse

Re:Is a registrar needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that someone who says "this song is distributed under my commercial license" really owns the right to do this? The only difference to creative commons, the GPL or similar is that there is a money trail which can be used to track the distributor. Nevertheless, infractions do occur.