What To Do About CC License Violations? 437
An anonymous reader writes "In the past, I've seen my pictures used by big commercial companies despite the Creative Commons license that clearly limits them to non-commercial use. I just let it slide because a friend who's a lawyer says that all I can do is sue. They've ignored emails and comments. Today, I saw two other examples that show this is pretty rampant. These big commercial corporations are some of the most tech savvy publications around, but they just grabbed the image. One, BoingBoing, even reprinted the 'non-commercial' clause, warning others to stay away. But they've got their ads from Cheerios, HP and Mazda running alongside. Does anyone care that we've gone to all this trouble to create new, more flexible licenses? Does it even matter when very smart people just flip the bird to the license? Is the only alternative to sue? I wouldn't mind asking for $150k and settling for $1 for each copy made, but that seems a bit crazy. I hate to type out DMCA notices but their attitude is that only uncool people complain about this and I should be happy about the publicity. Then they can be happy about not sharing their ad revenue with artists or photographers. What can I do?" Update: 08/30 18:39 GMT by T : (Very belated; mea culpa.) Cory Doctorow writes: "The anonymous submitter is not the creator of the photo. The creator of
that photo is Jennifer Trant, a friend and colleague of mine who has no
trouble with my use of her photo. I have just gotten off the phone with
her and confirmed that she did not submit the story and also that she is
happy to have this photo on Boing Boing." The photo has since been added back to BoingBoing.
Send them a bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Invoice them. If they don't pay, sue them.
Re:Send them a bill (Score:5, Insightful)
They would sue you in a heartbeat if they thought they could make a dollar from it. Don't let them get away with hypocrisy.
Re:Send them a bill (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Send them a bill (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Send them a bill (Score:4, Funny)
[citation to the contrary needed]
is this a bad joke or are you extremely poor at reading comprehension?
OP: This weird thing exists
Re: Where?
You: PROVE IT DOESN'T EXIST FIRST!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
what did legal say?
Legal doesn't HAVE an opinion because they weren't contacted and i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"It's the only option really."
Well, there are two options in fact (plus a default one).
1) Sue. Have you the time, money and will to go that path?
2) Bad PR. Have you the time, money and will to go that path?
3) Do nothing.
In the end it's always the same: the strongest win (for a variable definition of "stronger": bigger purse, better contacts, strongest will...).
You already had to know about that: if you cross a border with an army, you'd better have a stronger army than the other country's since armies are
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to enforce legal rights, then sue.
Boing Boing have already removed the image an added an apology to the post.
In the case of other websites, send a DMCA complaint to search engines. They must then either remove the image, or send a counter-notice, or have the search engine stop returning links to the page in searches.
Big media are not going to risk lying in the counter-notification, so they will probably remove the image.
Your only other alternative is to take your photos off anywhere they can be
RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Invoice them. If they don't pay, sue them.
That's exactly the major record labels' strategy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except that they skip right to the second part.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that they go after grandmothers whose grandkids wanted music for their MP3 players, whereas he’s just trying to keep people from profiting off what was supposed to be free (and free under the explicit condition that you weren’t allowed to profit from it).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(I recall reading stories about cartoonist Ken Weiner, who, also out of principle, used this technique with deadbeat freelance clients, with good effect. His alternate method was to visit their offices during business hours unannounced - brandishing a large
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since when was BoingBoing tech savy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try not paying your taxes to anyone who isn't - in your opinion - a "registered collector". See if it helps you keep your possessions.
Your organization's administrativialities, policies and similar bullshit have zero legal weight when dealing with anyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't matter; copyright infringement is almost always a strict liability offense. Even if they took all reasonable steps to avoid infringing, and any infringement was entirely accidental and unintentional, they're still on the hook for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, this [uh.edu] is my absolute favorite case on this subject. Scroll down to the section titled "Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintiff's copyright?" and remember to read footnote 5, which is part of that section.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a astoundingly anti-consumer ruling. Anyone who browses a infringing copyright image is guilty of copyright infringement themselves but if they can prove (at the cost of time and a lawyer) that it was innocent infringement the court 'may' reduce the award so that they are 'only' liable for statutory damages. That means a $750 minimum award per infringing work for someone who is entirely innocent of any intent to infringe and likely with no way of knowing that there were infringing works there befo
DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wired, having y'know, actual printed copies and stuff, could probably be intimidated into an actual settlement more easily...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, start filing takedown notices.
It's a frickin' license. It's a legal agreement they're violating.
Offer settlements, if they decline, file DMCA takedown notices and start a blog shaming them. (With appropriate screenshots.)
If that still doesn't help, get a lawyer.
Always remember: If they have no reason to pay you, they're not gonna pay you. It's as simple as that. You invested work into those pictures and you're entitled to payment if they're being used commercially. Since they don't play fair, you'll h
MAY be violating (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the relevant definition (from CC ver. 3):
Is the use of the photo to illustrate a story "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage"? My own blog has ads on it, but those ads have never paid me enough to even meet the expenses of hosting the blog. Would I be using the image for "commercial advantage" if I posted it on my blog?
Worse, the phrase "commercial use" has a fairly standard meaning in photography law, as the use of the image basically in an advertisement. Thus, when the National Enquirer runs a photo of some celebrity, that use is an "editorial" use rather than a "commercial" use; it illustrates the editorial story. They still have to pay the photographer ("non-commercial use" by itself is hardly enough to allow a copyright violation), but they don't have to pay the subjects of the photo anything... even though the whole point of running the photo is to sell more copies of the Enquirer, a for-profit organization. But if they wanted to use the very same photo in an ad for, say, a watch company advertising in the Enquirer, then that ad would be a "commercial use" of the photo, and they would have to have the permission of the subjects of the photo to use it for that purpose. Media companies are VERY familiar with that distinction, so if they see a "non-commercial use only" clause, then they will automatically assume that just means that you can't use it in an actual ad.
So when the CC non-commercial clause is used, does that mean "commercial" versus "editorial" as the law has defined those concepts in an important area of photography law? Or does it mean something entirely different? The definition should be MUCH more clear. As a lawyer, I wouldn't have a problem representing BoingBoing here, and I'm sure the vagueness of the clause would at the VERY least allow them to get off with only paying a nominal charge for the use of the images, and may very well result in them not having to pay a dime.
Go rant at Lawrence Lessig and the lawyers who drew up the Creative Commons license for not writing clearer license terms.
Re:MAY be violating (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument appears to be that because you don't make a profit it isn't commercial use.
I'd argue that it's commercial, just not very successful at it. It's the distinction between a non-profit organization (which includes some major corporations at the moment) and a not-for-profit.
Re:DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Creation is rights ownership. (Score:5, Informative)
No. No one pays BoingBoing because this image is there. They're not offering it for sale, or charging to view it. But BoingBoing benefits because they're not out of pocket, yet they can show the image. In the end, more money in BoingBoing's pocket because their status quo as a content site is maintained, without recompensing the artist. An indirect financial benefit consequent to the artist's work.
Likewise, typically no one pays an individual for stealing music for their own use; but the individual benefits because they're not out of pocket, yet they have the product. The individual's status quo as a "hip, I heard that" and a "happy, I enjoy that" individual is maintained, without recompensing the artist. In the end, considering the music is in hand, more money in pocket: an indirect financial benefit consequent to the artist's work.
There is zero ethical difference between these two; in both cases, the artist creates, the art is used, and the artist's payment is weaseled out of. There is zero ethical difference between taking a digital product against the producer's wishes and stealing a vase out of my company showroom.
When someone creates something, it is theirs to decide what to do with it. If they want to sell it, as a consumer, you get to ethically vote with your wallet: Buy, and support them; don't buy, and don't support them. However, if you take the a product that is not offered freely without meeting their terms... that's just stealing.
It's mildly entertaining to watch the excuse train pull up and unload the same tired arguments, but in the end, it is stealing. BoingBoing is no less and no more guilty of stealing here than any cluetard who steals commercial music of software products. The degree that they are financially and reasonably liable is probably very little (same as an individual downloader) because odds are no one can show that they did any more or less business because that image was there... but ethically, they shit the bed just as badly as someone stealing jewelry.
If you want free pictures, you can start by going and visiting my flickr account. I don't use CC; I claim copyright only so I can specify that the rights are handed out, and allow unlimited use of any kind. If you want free software, go where the software is offered for free. I write free software, too (really free, not GPL [free unless you redistribute, then must do what we tell you.]) There are many more like me.
If free is your price, then that's where you should be looking: Products that are intended to be free for the uses you will make of them and explicitly say so. If you want a product that the creator deems only available for a specific exchange, either (A) make that exchange or (B) become a thief. There are no other options. You can, of course, add the "I'll make excuses" flag, but you're still firmly in column A or B.
Re:Creation is rights ownership. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point he was trying to make is that when you steal a physical object the owner no longer has it but when you copy someone else's work they still have their copy. These are two different things and deserve their own words. That's why we call one "stealing" and the other a "copyright violation".
Those numbers are a representation of actual money and the person you stole it from no longer has that money to spend.
Maybe so and maybe not. Copying a song that you wouldn't have purchased anyway costs the owner nothing while taking a physical object (or money as you've pointed out) deprives the owner of that item.
Re:DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am curious: If this is wrong, why is copying music (which is under a much more restrictive license than Creative Commons) not? Is it a "because I didn't make money off of it" thing?
Genuine question here, not trying to troll or flamebait.
Most people on /. probably would not say that full blown piracy is OK. Most of the issues with copyright law brought up here are with specific abuses of copyright, restrictive DRM, attacks on fair use, even using DMCA to attack free speech, etc. Even the hypocrisy of the music labels claiming that they are just trying to protect the rights of artists that they themselves are not paying is fair game.
There is a big difference between wanting to crack DRM for music you legally purchased so it can be played by another device or making another Downfall parody and pirating music for the explicit purpose of making bootleg CD's that you sell for profit.
What they are doing in this case is piracy for the explicit purpose of making profit.
Re:DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)
Receiving the news that what you hate to do is what the situation likely requires is not fun; but it can be informative...
Re:DMCA? (Score:4, Informative)
"Wow did you even read the summary?"
In other words, the original poster wants to do something about a problem he is not willing to do something relatively easy about, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Insightful)
Information doesn't want to be free.
Some people want other people's information to be free, but that's about as far as it goes.
Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, what? I actually don't pirate software. I don't download what I don't have permission (from the rights holder) to download. And yet, from that, you're saying it's okay to violate my rights. You're saying that it's okay to violate the rights of one party on the grounds that a second party's rights are being violated by a third party, based on your assumption that the first party and the third party are pretty much one and the same.
Wow, and I thought I was an asshole. Thanks for making me realize how wrong I was.
Re:Why ask? (Score:5, Interesting)
One slight mistake, Generally speaking people that are creating content believe and follow the licenses. The lechers that contribute little to nothing to society and just expect to be given everything for free that are the ones usually pirating. However you have a solid point, if you pirate material you basically have no ground to say this guy should get anything for his works.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if you pirate material you basically have no ground to say this guy should get anything for his works.
No, that's bullshit. If you are a copyright non-believer then you don't have the right to complain when others don't believe in your own copyrights. But you still have every right to point out the hypocrisy of a copyright believer committing copyright infringement . It isn't your personal belief in copyright that matters, what matters is your ability to recognize hypocrisy. As the saying goes - it doesn't take a baker to know when the bread is stale.
Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Funny)
I oogle women (18 and over, natch), and still manage to contribute, you insensitive clod.
Why not bash the leechers for failing to reciprocate for what they egregiously appropriate?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
You *do* realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot, right? And just because a lot of people are anti-copyright doesn't mean they all are, right?
Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Informative)
Information doesn't want to be free. Some people want other people's information to be free, but that's about as far as it goes.
I found the original quote in its entirety to be a lot better at describing our trade off [wikipedia.org]:
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.
It became some sort of rallying cry for some folks about some ideals. But if you really think about it, personifying information is quite idiotic. Information doesn't want to be free. It can't want anything. If there were no humans around information wouldn't do a whole lot. Certain kinds of information like DNA seem to have some unknown motive and mechanization to persist and mutate but the way we view information (as a product of other humans) is something that we want to be free and that we don't want to have to pay for. And really, the producers of the information want it to be expensive. They want their reward back for their work. And the consumers are still wanting it to be free. So the speech did an interesting job of boiling it down into one thing -- one thing that has both these very strong forces pulling on it. But then you have the legal system of most nations pulling it to be more expensive and litigious while at the same time technology pulls it paradoxically the other way. It's a capital tug of war game with the rope of information and when you say "information wants to be free" you're only talking about one side of the rope.
Re:Why ask? (Score:5, Interesting)
And really, the producers of the information want it to be expensive. They want their reward back for their work.
More than that, they want to be rewarded perpetually for work they did once, which is why it strikes so many people as basically unfair, or at least anomalous. If I pay you to put a new roof on my house, I pay you once for a few days' work, at until I need you to come back in fifteen or twenty years to do it again. Another roofer can do my neighbor's roof without having to pay you for having roofed my house first. And so it goes with most jobs: you get paid for the work you do. With information, you get paid for all time for having done some work at some point in the past.
Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
The system of artificial scarcity we call intellectual property rights was created because, unlike roofs, information is cheap and easy to duplicate, and without that artificial scarcity, creators of useful information would get paid so little that they'd find something less useful but more profitable to do. Unfortunately, it's been carried to such an extreme -- in large part because of the transferability of those privileges -- that entire industries now make billions of work they haven't done at all, while the actual creators, by and large, still get paid jack. What has changed with recent technological advances isn't so much the cost of duplicating data, which was already cheap as dirt, but the emergence of the possibility of eliminating the distribution cartels that screw the creators and gouge the consumers.
Aside from a few exceptional cases, that possibility remains theoretical. Instead of information wanting to be free, the dominant force at work is that people want all they can get, and those who already have a bunch are in a good position to take more, with minimal recompense, from the rest of us. Which is nothing new.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm struck by the idea that the USA was founded on the supposition that we were born with "property rights." One explanation of this is that "Life" assumes we own ourselves, "Liberty" assumes we can use what we own (ourselves) to do what we want AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, and "Pursuit of happiness" is construed as the right to own (and dispose of) the products of our life AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.
Producing information (the pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
big corp or indy web developer, if his stuff is getting ripped off, sue sue sue if they won't be polite.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where did you get that idea?
I release source under the GPL very intentionally for instance. That makes it undesirable to many companies. I'm happy enough to negotiate a different license, in exchange for money of course.
I have also earned money writing GPL licensed code, by getting hired to improve an existing project.
Same goes for CC-NC licenses. If I release something under those terms it's my intention to let the random Joe with a blog use the content for free, but if a magazine wants it, they have to pa
If you really care, sue (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't sue, who will? Perhaps the EFF can help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There fixed that for you.
The sad truth is that like any other agreement or contract, it is only worth as much as you are willing to pay your lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Were you being facetious? The EFF are the lawyers - when you make a donation to them, you're helping to pay for litigation for people who may not otherwise be able to afford lawyers. Check out some of the legal battles they've won here [eff.org], and consider making a donation.
Re:If you really care, sue (Score:5, Informative)
They bill the companies - and if they do not part with their brass, sue.
http://www.bildkunst.de/ [bildkunst.de]
maybe there is a similar org where you live?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't pursue this in some form against all parties you discover have violated your rights, can their lawyers say that you were not actively seeking to defend the license on your images and therefore any individual attempt can be dismissed? I mean its like that with trademarks is it not? If you aren't actively defending it, you can lose it?
IANAL of course.
I would pursue the DMCA takedown notice route I think (assuming you are in the USA), and let them know of the problem. At the same time, contact the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean its like that with trademarks is it not? If you aren't actively defending it, you can lose it?
It is like that with trademarks, it is not like that with copyright.
Software companies even deliberately ignore pirating in order to increase their installed base, and crack down later.
Re:If you really care, sue (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, of course the EFF would help you sue Cory Doctorow, who is a former EFF staff member, recipient of EFF's 2007 Pioneer Award, and a current EFF fellow.
Here's what you do (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Send a DMCA notice.
2. They take it down, you DON'T sue, you DON'T get any money
3. Case closed.
or
1. Send a DMCA notice.
2. They don't take it down.
3. Sue.
4. Lose money on legal fees
5. They take it down. You still don't get any money.
DONT EXPECT MONEY!
Sue them. (Score:2)
Your lawyer is right. All you can do is sue them.
Your other option is just don't put stuff up on the web if you don't want people/corporations ripping it off. They will, you know.
Shoe's on the other foot (Score:2, Insightful)
So in the examples listed, are the authors making any money off the image...? If so, no harm done right? Because when software/movies/music/etc. are pirated for non-financial gain, it's no big deal. At least that's what I've heard on /.
CC Non-commercial license (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really think these particular images were chosen over others to generate revenue? Or do they just happen to be images picked to go along with the theme of the articles (which is indeed the case)? You guys are confusing the fact that these images happen to be placed on sites that earn revenue with the images themselves being responsible for said revenue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very annoying (Score:2, Interesting)
I've had similar things happen with my own works that I've licensed under either the CC or similar media-suited licenses. It's very annoying. Even worse, it's always the big companies that could actually afford a to pay for whatever rights necessary that dont, in my experience. Very sloppy business practices...
But what can you do? You have a choice: protect your rights (while you still have them!), ot let corporations take the piss. Pretty simple, really.
Re:Very annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Even worse, it's always the big companies that could actually afford a to pay for whatever rights necessary that dont, in my experience. Very sloppy business practices...
Obviously. You don't get to be the biggest company around by playing fair.
Reprint It (Score:4, Interesting)
Regarding the one vendor telling people to stay away from YOUR image, put up a copy on a website, and then taunt them with it. Make them sue you. Your response in Court should be most interesting. :-)
Re:Reprint It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "vendor" (it's a blog) isn't telling people to stay away from it, it's literally linked back to that dude's photostream and describes the license which means the vendor thinks they're following the license and doesn't think their blog is commercial use despite the ads. And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.
This is rich! Cory actually owns the hammock!
check this out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrant/sets/72157622221823079/ [flickr.com]
WTF?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Restoring a hammock to Moonwatcher's Point, courtesy of Cory Doctorow. All is now right with the world. Feel free to drop by when you need a moment's peace. And thank the kindness of strangers.
I don't even know what's happening now. Is this what a stroke feels like?
Re:Reprint It (Score:5, Informative)
and somebody on BoingBoing was monitoring or got alerted to the problem. The photo has been removed with an apology.
"Update: We've removed the CC-licensed image as it appears the photographer is unhappy with our usage of it here. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. Please accept our apologies. - Rob"
Re:Reprint It (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reprint It (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not sure that I understand. Boingboing used his image in a blog post. He is upset because there is an advertisement next to it? Or his he just mad because Boingboing is using the image in the first place?
To me, if a corporation wants to use the image IN an advertisement, then it is time to get upset. Until then, no big deal. If I had some CC-licensed images, I would feel honored if Boingboing used one. Then again, I am a little bit of a Boingboing fan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think he's thinking that BoingBoing is getting money with their posts (through advertisement), hence it's a commercial activity - and it makes sense. The BoingBoing poster obviously doesn't see their activities as commercial, which is odd.
Use... (Score:2, Funny)
You sue (Score:2)
On the bright side, there have been successful suits brought against CC violators.
put logos on everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ImageMagick is your friend. Feel free to google "imagemagick watermark".
Send them an invoice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You could... (Score:5, Informative)
Is BoingBoing's use "Commercial"? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's up for debate as to whether or not BoingBoing is receiving "monetary compensation" for "exchanging" your work. Yes, it's next to ads, which they're being paid to display. But they're not being paid to display your image. At least, not directly.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if you run a site that does _nothing_ but post CC images in a slide-show fashion along side advertisements?
Maybe that shows direct profit from the images?
What if they type a one paragraph "article" or "review" once a month or so and put that on some sub page, along with CC images and ads?
What if they put that "article" or "review" on the main page, along with CC images and ads?
Where is the line?
In my opinion, if you're being paid merely for having your site (through advertisement agreements), a
Boing Boing (Score:3, Interesting)
Boing Boing releases all of their stuff under CC NC SA, so you may not have a case there. IANAL, but that's probably the last one you'd want to take on over other companies.
That doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Forgive my ignorance... (Score:2, Interesting)
SUE (Score:2)
You have a couple of options.
1. Stop posting your photos on the Internet.
2. Do nothing and accept the exposure.
3. You can sue.
Like it or not but the legal system is probably the answer. Try to find a firm that will take on the case for free in exchange for a larger share of the profits. If you can't find a firm to take it on then reality is your work probably isn't worth any real money anyways so you should probably just accept the exposure and move on.
Or like I said earlier just stop posting your phot
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong place for this... (Score:2, Funny)
DIY (Score:5, Informative)
File against them in small claims court for the maximum allowed. They will probably not bother to show, so you will win. With a judgement, you have legal permission to do all kinds of creative nastiness to them. Garnishing wages, filing liens against their property, even having a sheriff by your side as you take some of their property to fulfill the judgement.
I am obviously not a lawyer, and the details will vary with jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you can't do that for copyright infringement (only federal courts can hear copyright cases). It would have to be framed as a breach of contract case to get into state court (and state courts won't always buy into that), and in this case it doesn't really strike me as the best way to go. The damages issue stands out in particular.
Send them an invoice... (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious thing would be to send them an invoice for a commercial license to your asset. Odds are, accounting will be more than happy to process it. No need to sue, or threaten to... Hell, you might just snag yourself a customer, if you are not careful for other assets too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You'd think ... (Score:3, Interesting)
From Boing Boing (Score:5, Informative)
Legal misunderstandings? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of US copyright law differs from yours...
The bad news, about that $150,000: you're not going to get it. Statutory damages are only awardable if your work was registered with the Copyright Office prior to the infringement. Without registration, you're eligible for actual damages, basically just how much money the infringer made off of your work. Unless Wired regularly pays $1 per copy per image (they don't) then you're not going to get that much either.
The good news, about those DMCA notices: you can skip them and go straight to a lawsuit if you want. DMCA notices are for the infringer's service provider; their ISP, or their web host, or the blog they commented on, or whatever. The service provider gets a chance to pass the notice on, then cut off service for the infringed work if the notice is unchallenged, without becoming liable for infringement themselves. But Wired isn't a service provider for its own employees. If they're copying your work without permission, they're already guilty, no backsies.
it's my photo on boingboing + cory had permission (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah. now I understand. You simply wanted to use Slashdot to promote your services for free.
In the post you replied to, jtrant wrote: "whoever started this thread didn't check with me [i'm not that hard to find] or with BoingBoing about the circumstances under which my image was used." The AC who submitted this story had nothing to do with the picture used at BoingBoing.
Why let facts get in the way of a good smearjob? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm the Boing Boing editor who posted the image that the OP claims violated the Creative Commons license.
Read the OP closely: he's not saying that it was *his* image I took -- rather, that he was affronted on behalf of the photographer.
Except that the photographer in this case is my friend and colleague Jennifer Trant, and I used the photo with her permission, and then reproduced the entire CC license so that other people would know what terms they could use it on.
So, anonymous poster: how about the next time you decide to smear someone for infringing Creative Commons in the name of defending someone's copyrights, you actually make sure that the creator hasn't authorized the use?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In general, people that use Creative Commons licenses are trying not to live in the Everybody's-a-Dick-iverse.
Re:If you're not going to defend a license... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you're not going to defend a license... (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but isn't that how stuff like trademarks work?
Trademarks work that way, but copyright doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sort of, but not really. People usually are overly protective of marks.
Basically, a mark remains valid so long as goods or services bearing the mark, associated with the mark, etc. are all considered, by the relevant segment of the market, to originate from a common source, though it isn't necessary to know what source, in particular.
So imagine you see a can of soda with the word COCA-COLA on it. You can expect that it ultimately originates from the same place as other, similarly marked cans, and that the q
BB removed it (Score:5, Informative)
boingboing has removed it and one of the editors put this note on the original article:
"Update: We've removed the CC-licensed image as it appears the photographer is unhappy with our usage of it here. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. - Rob"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BB removed it (Score:5, Informative)
We've reached out to the photographer, who appears to be a friend of Cory, and mentions Cory. It appears that the Slashdot post was from an anonymous Slashdot reader who was trolling for attention, not from the photographer, as Rob stated earlier. Not from a rightsholder, but from someone trying to punk Slashdot and prank Cory while Cory was away (he says so pretty clearly in this blog post).
I think that may warrant a little clarification in the summary.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did he register the copyright in a timely fashion? If not, he can't get statutory damages.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, actually from the moment the image is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, but close enough.
Nevertheless, in order to encourage people to register, you often cannot even get into court to sue until you've registered, and certain desirable remedies, such as legal fees and statutory damages, are not available unless the work was registered in a timely fashion.
That having been said, we should really revitalize our system of formalities. Automatically granting full-fledged copyrights is the single wo