[WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
|
View:
New views
5 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
|
|
|
Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
by Jon Davis-5
::
Rate this Message:
"Does the contract (private use only for photos) implicitly agreed to by Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA license" -- In my recollection, the answer is no. It is similar to someone taking a picture where it says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY". They might be breaking someones rules, and could risk getting thrown out, but the picture is still theirs to keep. The IOC could sue the photographer for breach of contract (which would be hilarious to watch the PR beating they get for that), but once again, that doesn't effect us. In short, contracts can be broken, laws can't.
And not that I need to remind this crew, but the CC license is non-revocable, so the IOC is too late. The photographer licensed his image under CC, and that is the end of it. You can change the license back on Flickr, but that doesn't mean it isn't still legally available under CC. That is the _entire_ reason we have the Flickr Reviewer bot. -Jon On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 19:41, Sage Ross <ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] http://snowulf.com/ - Blog http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures This has been a test of the emergency sig system. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l |
|
|
Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
by Sage Ross
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Jon Davis <wiki@...> wrote:
> "Does the contract (private use only for photos) implicitly agreed to by > Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA > license" -- In my recollection, the answer is no. It is similar to someone > taking a picture where it says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY". They might be breaking > someones rules, and could risk getting thrown out, but the picture is still > theirs to keep. The IOC could sue the photographer for breach of contract > (which would be hilarious to watch the PR beating they get for that), but > once again, that doesn't effect us. In short, contracts can be broken, laws > can't. Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a contract. I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the copyright to his photos. But agreeing to terms and conditions is different from walking past a "no photos" sign. Contracts can be broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts. > And not that I need to remind this crew, but the CC license is > non-revocable, so the IOC is too late. The photographer licensed his image > under CC, and that is the end of it. You can change the license back on > Flickr, but that doesn't mean it isn't still legally available under CC. > That is the _entire_ reason we have the Flickr Reviewer bot. > The IOC's argument, I imagine, would not be that the CC license should be revoked, but that it was never valid in the first place since, by agreeing to a prior contract, Giles had given up the right to enter into certain other kinds of contracts for the photos he took. I don't think that's right, but it seems more complicated than typical cases of against-the-rules photography and attempts to revoke licenses. -Sage _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l |
|
|
Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
by Maarten Dammers
::
Rate this Message:
Sage Ross schreef:
> Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a > contract. I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the > copyright to his photos. But agreeing to terms and conditions is > different from walking past a "no photos" sign. Contracts can be > broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts. > You might want to read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions Maarten _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l |
|
|
Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
by Sage Ross
::
Rate this Message:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Maarten Dammers <maarten@...> wrote:
> Sage Ross schreef: >> Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a >> contract. I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the >> copyright to his photos. But agreeing to terms and conditions is >> different from walking past a "no photos" sign. Contracts can be >> broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts. >> > You might want to read > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions > I know this is our standard procedure, to ignore most typical non-copyright restrictions that involve contracts rather than laws. But this seems different from typical cases we deal with (and different from any of the examples on that page). It seems like an intermediate case between ignoring a no photos sign or agreeing to a no photos contract, on the one hand, and contract like what Burning Man uses (which actually does prevent us from using photos of that event by people who signed it: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa ). I *think* the IOC terms and conditions are irrelevant to whether someone can use free licenses if they want to, but the waters seem muddier than in the cases I'm familiar with. -Sage _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
