Creative Commons License Flaws Claimed 233
bloosqr writes "Dan Heller, in a series of three articles, claims to have found a number of problems with the Creative Commons license, particularly within the realm of photography. In the first article he states there is a problem with people relicensing copyrighted work under the CC license and having subsequent users of that copyrighted work sued by the original owner. In the second article he fleshes out these ideas and states that there is an increased risk of being sued if you use a CC license. Finally, in the third article, he states that people can 'game the CC license' for profit, by suing people who use your CC'd work which you have subsequently revoked from the CC license. This series of blogs has generated a fair amount of discussion on several photography forums, and I would like for the Slashdot community to clarify matters."
I Must Be Confused ... No Backsies! (Score:5, Informative)
You know, I thought that if you license it as creative commons then all derivative works and the like from that work must also be CC
Well, from the faq [creativecommons.org]:
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
I think a lot of these issues would be resolved by making it "no backsies, all derivatives must be CC, tough if you want to use them no lawsuits plz k thanx bye." And that's the best legalese I know.
And another flaw - Model Releases (Score:5, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/22/0319252 [slashdot.org]
Wrong on all counts, troll (Score:2, Informative)
We do like screwing over 'individualists' who want to profit off our sharing without contributing, though. Thus the GPLv3. Don't you hate that? We can band together and stop you from screwing us over for a profit. Sucks to be selfish, eh?
Re:I Must Be Confused ... No Backsies! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I Must Be Confused ... No Backsies! (Score:5, Informative)
1. Register your images with the Copyright Office (think this is a US thing)
2. Stick your images on a web site with something like a CC-attribution license.
3. Wait for people to use your images.
4. Remove your images from the web site.
5. Pretend they were never CC-licensed.
6. The old 'switcheroo'. Produce a commercial license and a nice payment chart.
7. Sue users.
The problem is that the burden of proof is on the users to show they got it legally, and if you wipe all traces of your CC licensing from the internet then they can't prove it, and you win. So, he concludes, people shouldn't use other people's CC-licensed images because you can't trust them to not commit what looks to me like fraud.
It's not a problem if you pay for an image because then you have a paper trail for the payment, and maybe even a written, signed license. I guess if you get a signed CC license from the supplier then that's one way out of this.
His other argument is that CC-licensed photos might have images of people who haven't given permission for certain usages of their image. In copyright-speak that's 'provided a model release'. He gives a concrete example of where this actually happened. So, he concludes, don't use other people's CC-licensed images unless you've sorted out model clearance. But even then, you've got the switcheroo problem I've just outlined.
Not sure why he takes a few thousand words and half a dozen blog posts to explain all that, but there ya go.
Barry
IANALBIDOOARHCLB
[I am not a lawyer but I dated one once and read her contract law books]
Re:It Only Has To Happen Once To Be Scary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It Only Has To Happen Once To Be Scary (Score:3, Informative)
This doesn't illustrate any problem at all with CC -- it's just run-of-the-mill IP infringement. The fact that TFA doesn't bother citing any examples of anyone actually being sued for this is telling -- fact is, no one would ever get sued except possibly the person committing the original crime. The worst that might happen is a cease-and-desist letter getting sent.
Re:The catch with CC (Score:1, Informative)
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 [creativecommons.org]
Re:No Termination (Score:4, Informative)
I do more work in software, so am not the best one to explain this, although I'm sure there are legal guides for photographers.
Bruce
Re:It Only Has To Happen Once To Be Scary (Score:3, Informative)
CC isn't a copyright - it's a distribution license.
Re:Clarification please.. (Score:3, Informative)
1. People ILLEGALLY claim copyrighted works (by others) are CC, and other people who use them in good faith find themselves violating copyright.
2. People ILLEGALLY remove CC from their works, but the burden of proof that the work was ever CC is on whoever made the derivative works or copies.
"1" is "man in the middle attack", "claim it's yours and it's CC"
"2" is "bait and switch", "I'd swear it was still CC yesterday!"
Re:The catch with CC (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't a problem with the CC at all, or even with the photographer. The photographer in the case you mention [slashdot.org] had every right to post the photo under any license he wanted to, including a Creative Commons license without the "No Commercial Use" tag, or heck, even public domain. By releasing the photo under CC, the photographer is only addressing the copyright of the photo, not other issues such as the need for a model release [wikipedia.org]. Further, it is the publisher of an image (in this case, Virgin Mobile) who is responsible for making sure there is a model release. Again, this has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright on an image may be free and clear, even with no model relase in place. And as the sole creator of the image, the photographer is free to license the image under any license he or she wants, regardless of the existence of a model release or really any other legal complication for publishing the photo that may exist. The photographer is simply saying it's ok to use the photo commercially from a copyright point of view