March 22, 2006

Creative Commons Upheld!

A judge in Amsterdam ruled CC licenses have teeth. Nice job!

So Adam Curry apparently published a photo of his daughter on Flickr. A magazine called Weekend said they thought it was okay to use it because the photo said "public" next to it, and they didn't read the licensing which was linked right in the same area of the interface.

The Weekend people apparently didn't understand that "public" did not mean the copyright was "no rights reserved" but it seems ambiguous at best. I understand the Weekend people misinterpreted the interface and information, but it's not that hard to make out, and is their responsibility to get the copyright right. Several times American newspapers have emailed me asking to reuse my photos.. which I've given them permission to do. So some publications are doing it right.

Great marks for Creative Commons though!

Posted by Mary Hodder at March 22, 2006 08:19 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Doug Kaye makes a pretty compelling argument that this decision did not, in fact, address the Creative Commons license one way or the other:

http://urlizer.com/00/1940/

The commercial publication Weekend simply isn't eligible for the Creative Commons license, so what they did was just straightforward copyright infringement. That the Creative Commons license was offered didn't affect Weekend's standing at all.

Posted by: Steve Williams at March 23, 2006 04:37 PM

Is this by any chance the same Adam Curry of MTV fame?

Posted by: Ed Falk at March 24, 2006 10:29 AM