Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court 121
musicon writes "As seen on Groklaw, a recent court decision upheld the the Creative Commons license in the Netherlands: 'The Creative Commons licenses are quite new, so there has been very little in the way of case law so far, so this is a significant development. The ruling rejected a 'the license wasn't clear' defense, particularly for sophisticated entities, and it upheld the license as binding without the licensee having to agree or even to have knowledge of the terms of the license.' You can read successful plaintiff Adam Curry's blog on the ruling too."
Worth Listening to hist PodCast (Score:1)
Re:Worth Listening to hist PodCast (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it's something to do with this new Greasemonkey script I'm running...
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I don't understand something... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
The Dutch Court's decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and bind users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license.
You, the user of the content, are bound by the license without knowing it. How is this different from a shrinkwrap license? [lex2k.org]
But those are bad, and the CC license is good, and they share the same ambush-applicability feature.
I'm sure it's because I'm too simpleminded to comprehend the difference, but it seems to me that poison for the goose ought to be poison for the gander.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:1)
It's like Copyright, silly (Score:4, Informative)
If in doubt about the license of content, assume it's copyrighted. The CC licenses only grant you rights beyond what copyright does.
Re:It's like Copyright, silly (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:5, Informative)
An individual who doesn't know the precise details of the copyright status on file (because they don't have the license that should accompany it) won't get burned by assuming that the default applies. They just aren't aware of all the things they can do.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
With a typical EULA license, if you reject the license, it should fall back on regular copyright law which doesn't include BSA clauses anti-fair use restrictions, but which includes a "no unauthorized copying provision".
With a CC license, if you reject the license, it should fall back on regular copyright law which gives you less rights (i.e. it includes a "no unauthorized copying provision").
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
-1 for assuming people don't speak more than one language fluently.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:1)
I did consider putting in a comment about the typical linguistic ability in the Netherlands, but the comment was a little too rambling.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.creativecommons.nl/ [creativecommons.nl]
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that the intent is different, I think he was referring to the submarine effect that copyright has in general terms. The problem is that 'good' and 'evil' don't have the any meaning in the legal system. There is only 'legal' and 'illegal' and an EULA is an EULA is an EULA. This 'good' judgement might set
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
No, it's not just different "intent", it's different in action. You can always choose not to use PERMISSIONS, whereas unilaterally deciding to reject RESTRICTIONS is a recipe for trouble.
Alternat
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Remember that the base here is copyright, not public domain. Creative Commons is more restrictive than public domain, but more permissive than copyright. EULAs are less permissive than copyright.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
No, CC does NOT make demands, it provides alternatives. It's silly to complain that CC-by requires attribution, because the alternative is "don't redistribute without explicit approval". At no time does CC stand in the way of normal legal rights.
I stand by my analogy of speed limits. The part you don't seem to get is that public domain (aka the Autobahn) is not Not NOT the default.Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
What this case does is (possibly) create some precedant that shrink-wrap/click-thru EULAs are enforceable...
No it does not.
The ruling only says: if you wanna use get a agreement with the author, one way to get an agreement is simply to accept the authors license. doing NOTHING and assuming you can get away later claiming "you did not know" is no way to get an agreement with the original copyright owner.
Shrink wrap EULAs are something completely different. This term is usually used in conjunction with buying
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
The (cc) license in question requires attribution. So this license is in fact making demands of it's own.
No, it does not!!!! the CC gives you the right use, modifie and redistribute!!!! By default you have no such rights!!!! Defining under which terms it (the license or in other words the auther) gives you those rights is the sole authors privilege to define.
angel'o'sphere
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand.
Yet still a better offer than you get from regular copyright restrictions.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
That's for US copyright. I'm not sure about the Netherlands though. What are the privileges of the user under Dutch copyright, and what is the CC license in question?
Off topic, I can easily imagine the day when some of our "revered" F.O.S.S. licenses become more restrictive than copyright. Imagine a nation that loosened its copyright laws so that the restriction
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point, I expect, is that by default, it is illegal for you to make use of the work (barring fair use etc.). Everything is automatically copyrighted, so anything that was not made by you must be assumed to be inaccessible to you.
The only thing that may allow you to use the work is if the copyright holder expressly gives you permission to do so. For any work that is distributed under some license, therefore, you have one of two situati
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
But you don't even need to go that far. Every condition in a "free" license is in reality a restriction, and thus in some tiny small way a restriction over and above what copyright imposes. That
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
This is positively wrong. When the court found that the license had not been followed, it was treated as any other copyright infringement. In particular, the defendant was not forced to comply with the license (e.g. by offering its publication with the same license) but was rather warned that future copyright breaches of the same kind will be fined. As I said, then, the defen
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
My apologies. I should have dug deeper. And the Slashdot summary could have been accurate as well. I can only blame myself for merely skimming TFA.
p.s. Is there going to be a countersuit for the fraudulent use of the term "this photo is public"?
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Amen to that. As usual, the summary completely failed to sum up the essentials of TFA. These things appear to be written by spin doctors in training.
Is there going to be a countersuit for the fraudulent use of the term "this photo is public"?
Seems doubtful. If there even is a legal definition of a work being "public", I would guess that publication on the Internet qualifies for it.
Of course, IANAL.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
This ruling wasn't about defaulting to copyright, it was about upholding license terms that were never even seen, let along agreed to.
you are wrong, exactly about that it was.
The copyright infringer first claimed: oh oh, I did not infringe copyright, after all its under a "free license"
Then he said, well well, but then the CC can't be valid!!!
And the courts answer was: even if you don't know the exact temrs, the license is valid. After all its your respo
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
I quote from the fine article
The judgement was not that the license supercedes copyright law, but that just because a website had a sign saying a picture was public, it need no
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
That's for US copyright. I'm not sure about the Netherlands though. What are the privileges of the user under Dutch copyright, and what is the CC license in question?
Pretty similar.
You have no rights to use, modify, redistribute of somone elses work. And certainly users have no priviledges
angel'o'sphere
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
THe problem with shrinkwrap licenses is not really that they exist, but that the terms are often quite onerous.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the problem is with copyright, not shrinkwrap licenses or CC or the GPL or anything else. Copyright law allows people to be "ambushed" like this, simply because everything is copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise.
If you found a penny on the ground, it would be near impossible for even the most overzealous attourney general to find something to convict you with for spending that penny. But, if you were to find a snippet of
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
The only point I would make is that someone else does not "own" the code or song. The right to copy and reproduce that code or song is restricted by Copyright law and is likely reserved by someone else. Of course, you do not know for sure just
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you use that piece of paper that you found the snippet on, you almost certainly couldn't be found guilty of anything. You could put it up in a store window, or show it to your friends, or give it away, or trade it for goods (like the penny).
And also on the other hand, if you were to _copy_ the penny, you'd probably get into lots of trouble (ok, maybe not for a penny, but if it were a $20
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
That's a good question, but most likely if you put the piece of paper up where people can see it and somehow the rights holder finds out about it, they'll probably sue for royalties. Just like how you can't play music from a radio to your customers without paying up, they'll claim that their content (somehow) added value to your product or service and therefore they deserve a cut.
I wonder though, what would happen if you claim you were using the piece of paper, and not
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure it's because I'm too simpleminded to comprehend the difference, but it seems to me that poison for the goose ought to be poison for the gander.
Not simple-minded. You just don't know how the license works. Just a lack of information, which is not a bad thing, and easily remedied. To wit:
CC licenses do not restrict the behavior of anyone who obeys traditional copyright. That is, you cannot, without authorization, redistribute the copyrighted material. In this case, the magazine in question did redistribute the material in question.
So what does the CC license have to do with it then? isn't it a simple copyright case?
In this case, the owner of the copyrighted material offered additional rights. The owner effectively said, "Under certain conditions, I will grant you authorization to redistribute this material."
That is, copyright says what you can and cannot do with the material, and you are free to treat CC'd material 100% according to copyright law. No problem.
If, however, you would like to do something that is not allowed by copyright law but is granted by the CC license, then you must abide by the conditions set out in the license.
Shrinkwrap agreements are different. They say that you are not allowed treat the product according to copyright law.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Yes they do! Read the damned licenses! Any condition to the license is also a restriction. Consider the Share Alike licenses. Copyright does not have a restriction against not sharing. So a condition that requires sharing is an additional restriction over and above what copyright imposes. It doesn't matter the permissions outweight the restrictions, because the restrictions are STILL there. It doesn't matter if you feel the r
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
It's those pesky founding fathers! They revolted against the King and supported a right to vote. This took away our rights, because they didn't also include a right to vote many times in the same election, and a right to stop people we disagree with from voting too, and all those other rights we should have gotten too. We were free when we had no vote, now we are slaves because we have recognition of just one right which wasn't recognized before, instead of unlimited rights that 'should' go w
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Are you insane, or just stupid? That is exactly the point of copyright. You cannot "share" copyrighted material when the "sharing" involves making additional copies of the material. Sure, the first sale doctrine allows you to "share" a work by giving away or selling your legally purchased copy, but that's not what is at issue here. Even if you obtain a work licensed under the CC Share Alike license you can reject the license and give away your
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Let's say ordinary copyright gives you permissions (1) and restrictions (A B C D E). Let's say a free license gives you permissions (2 3 4 5 6) but only if you do (F). That (F) is a restriction, and it is a restriction not covered by ordinary copyright.
Distribution is a pre-requisite to sharing. Therefore there is no need fo
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Yes, but copying and distributing isnt. It's the copying part that is enforcing and binding.
"That only one of us can read the book at any given time is irrelevant."
Unfortunately, no, it isnt irrelevant.
To truly comprehend copyright and its aspects, you need to separate and clear up certain fundamentals that are confusing at best and actively propagandized against by the ip lobby.
A physical incarnation of a copyrighted work is a specific piece of property. If you
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Ignorance of the terms really isn't an excuse, regardless of what license it's under.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
It isn't, and that's a good thing. The more people are punished for not checking the license of content before they use it, the more people will demand those license terms be put out front, where they can see some of the ridiculous things that they are held to by some license agreements.
Those that insist on hiding it and putting usurous restrictions on the use of their content will then finally be subject to market forces. UNtil then, what's good for the goo
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:5, Informative)
A Copyright is a license that applies to a work and allows the copyright holder to dictate the circumstances upon which a work may be copied. Examples of copyrights are the GPL, LGPL, Creative Commons, and the good old "All rights reserved" which is the default. A copyright can ONLY state conditions regarding copying. It cannot state anything about reverse-engineering, reselling, writing reviews of the product, disclosing benchmarks, etc.
A Contract is a license that applies to anything at all and allows the two parties to agree to anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature, witnesses, etc). Examples of contracts are employment contracts, purchase orders, etc. A contract can state anything. In the case of software, a contract could state that the user cannot reverse-engineer it, publish benchmarks about it, write revews, etc.
Granting of rights:
Suppose I write some software, copyright it, and I give you a copy. You can do anything you want with it EXCEPT copy it.
A copyright grants rights to the consumer. My copyright could say that "The author grants you the right to make infinite copies" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you include the source code" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you don't reverse-engineer it." In neither case did copyright place any restrictions upon you. You can still reverse-engineer the software if you want! You just can't copy it if you do.
A contract removes rights from the signer. If I make you sign a contract, that contract could say that "The author denies you the right to reverse-engineer this software." In this case the contract took away a right you already had. You can't reverse-engineer the software at all.
Your original question - why is this good news? Yes, the CC license is good because copyrights are good, because they grant rights to the users of the work. You buy the product from the store without knowing about the copyright. So you must assume you cannot copy the product at all in any way because that is the default rights you have. But you open the package and are ambushed with the good news that it is GPL so you CAN copy it so long as you give out the source code along with it. Yaaaay!
But shrink-wrap licenses are bad because you buy the product from the store without knowing about the license. So you assume that you can reverse-engineer the application and write a benchmark on it. But you open the package are are ambushed with the bad news that you CANNOT benchmark it or reverse-engineer it. Booo!
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
A contract requires no such thing. It may be orders of magnitude easier to sue someone for breaching a contract if you've got unassailable proof of what they agreed to, but an oral contract made between two people with no one else around is still a contract.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
>anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature,
>witnesses, etc).
>>A contract requires no such thing. It may be orders of magnitude easier to sue someone for breaching
>>a contract if you've got unassailable proof of what they agreed to, but an oral contract made
>>between two people with no one else around is still a contract.
That's why an
I don't get it. (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
You don't see copyright notices in books - for example - stating that you can't re-sell the book when your done with it, but I've certain
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
They're both copyright law,
No they are not.
A EULA is ot a license. A EULA is an agreement, thus it is a contract.
EULAs are void because you can't expose a "second contract" on one party after the legal transaction of "buying something" is already conducted.
An EULA attempts to say: now as you are at home with your new property there are ADDITINAL contract terms we expose now on you. And the EULA tries to convice you you would agree by default by simply using your new property.
But the simple fact that the itm
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
They're both copyright law,
No they are not.
A EULA is ot a license. A EULA is an agreement, thus it is a contract (or an attempt to be a contract).
EULAs are void because you can't expose a "second contract" on one party after the legal transaction of "buying something" is already conducted.
An EULA attempts to say: now as you are at home with your new property there are ADDITINAL contract terms we expose now on you. And the EULA tries to convice you you would
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
With the images, simply viewing the image does not invoke the license. However, if you wish to publish one of these images, you have to deal with Copyright. And to avoid breaking the law, you have to comply with the terms of the license the licensee has outlined. Claiming ignorance of the license is not a valid defense (even more so for someone in a publishing industry). The term "users of such content" is really a reference to publishers... not a general us
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Actually, your position if you don't have a license should be one of default deny - you are denied of doing anything (except as covered by fair use under copyright law). Creative Commons actually adds rights you would otherwise not have at all. So if you're ignorant of an image being under the Creative Commons Attributio
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
You, the user of the content, are bound by the license without knowing it. How is this different from a shrinkwrap license?
Pretty simple:
*I* create some stuff, lets say a writing (or some source code).
*You* want to use my stuff.
Who is resposnible to figure if he can use it? *I* or *You*?
According to most laws in Europe and elsewehre where copyright laws exist no one has any rights to use *my* stuff for anythign without getting a license first.
In all cases where I'm aware off, the person who wants to use *
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Well, the more or less general opinion on
Not only are there really a lot of cases where GPL and other licenses are involved (so meanwhile you could calm down) but moreover as I said in my previous post, a license msut contain simple a lot of illegal clauses, real
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:2)
That is misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That is misleading (Score:2, Redundant)
To me, that was always the loophole for EULAs. "By pressing this button and installing this software you agree to these terms". Well no. No law (until recently) says pushing a button means you agree to anything. The only thing that applies meaning to the installation is the EULA, so if I don't agree then pushing the button doesn't mean anything.
Same with credit card companies changing their terms "your continued use of the card
Re:That is misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
More interestingly, what if someone else agrees on my behalf, without my permission? Now, you might initially say that that other person would bear responsibility for my use, but what if the third-party involved had fur, whiskers, and a tail? And just to avoid the "I have responsibility for my pets" problem, presume this furry li'l EULA-circumventor stores nuts for the winter and came in through an open window.
Or for a potentially more likely way around agreeing to a EULA (and in fact, the way that I personally use whenever possible) - Most Windows installers (and all MSIs?) allow a silent installation as a command-line option. Silent, as in, it never asks you to agree, or even tells you about what you would otherwise have agreed to. I'd like to see that scenario played out in court...
Re:That is misleading (Score:1)
Re:That is misleading (Score:1)
Then the press is reporting this very badly. Which isn't surprising. Thanks for clearing this up.
From Adam Curry's blog... (Score:2)
Re:From Adam Curry's blog... (Score:2)
Actually, it didn't hold up... (Score:1, Interesting)
the pictures in the first place
Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
That could translate as a company could take sourcecode licenced under an open licence. When they are eventually found out, they can argue they don't have to pay any damages because the code was available for free. But these were just short proceedings, so the verdict may be different if Curry decides to push this trough.
Re:Not so fast (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not so fast (Score:2)
When someone infringes on your copyright, the damage is the money that they didn't pay for the commercial license. (IANAL, this is not legal advice.)
I like that. Of course, even without the proprietary option, I could argue that I suffered damages because the source code was GPLd specifically to avoid this situation and that I would have demanded a license fee (possibly per copy) of anyone who wanted to use it in a commercial product.
The lesson here (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, suppose you use it on a personal web page. In exchange for a free web page from an ISP, you agree to put up with Google ads on the page. Certainly, if the page becomes popular because of the "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" work, the provider will benefit financially via increased ad exposure. So is this commercial or noncommercial?
There are other problems. You cannot put a "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" work, e.g. an icon for your app, in open-source software under GPL, BSD, etc., since it would defeat the whole purpose of those licences. Imagine if Linux were under "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" - then it would have barely developed to become a hobbyist toy for a few hackers, if even that.
For this reason, I personally steer clear of anything with a "noncommercial" restriction, treating it as if it were covered by standard copyright. It's just not worth the risk.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Licenses without signed contracts (Score:2)
I do think there can be an acceptable way to agree, through contract, to tell a person what they can and can't do with a product you sell them. I'm not sure how we can facilitate Internet purchases (and licensing) without a signature, though. For me, I am not comfortable with the idea that a simple click or download is the equivalent of ac
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:1)
but not when it comes to my music.
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:2)
I don't see why any company should be able to decide how I use things I own.
Your morning coffee now starts with This Starbucks Coffee License is a single user license, and does not allow you to sell or give away this coffee to anyone else. The coffee must be consumed within fifteen (15) minutes of purchase. Unused potions must be disposed of at a designated Star
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:2)
Come on, you know the answer to that. As soon as it becomes more profitable to change, they will do so.
As far as your other questions, I am also intrigued.
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:2)
Does anyone have any thoughts to how we can facilitate contract acceptance for transactions where we can't sign it?
Cryptographic signatures seem like they might do the trick, though you might need to have them registered somewhere to prove your identity.
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:1)
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:2)
Re:Licenses without signed contracts (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's how it works:
1) I am against license agreements in installers. By the time you have the installer, you either have all the rights you need to run the program via default copyright laws, or you are pirating the software.
2) I am NOT against click through license agreements before you can purchase/download software. This is fair as your are making an informed decision. You are being given the details up-front, and are making an inf
Question? (Score:1)
Re:Question? (Score:4, Informative)
Answer : (Score:2)
Re:Answer : (Score:1)
Re:Answer : (Score:2)
They were not taking pictures of his Daughter. They had sent some creep fron the Netherlands to the UK to follow her. FFS she is 16! What would you think of someone who follows a girl (with well off parents) to school and then puts in the paper details of her daily route etc?
Pictures were apparently stolen off the Flickr site at http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamc1999/sets/ [flickr.com] where you can get pictures of his family, friends, plane, car and even the table he does his podcasts on. It's his family photo alb
Comments on TFA (Score:2, Funny)
By analogy, most people don't charge when they have sex.
They don't?!? Why didn't anyone tell me?
Yet this should not be seen as evidence that the market value of sex is zero and hence there is no damage in cases of rape.
True, but I think it is safe to say that the victim has not directly suffered loss of income unless they were a hooker (obviously physical, psychological and indirect damage notwithstanding).
Bad analogies, it seems, are not exclusive to
Re:Comments on TFA (Score:2)
TFA: Yet this should not be seen as evidence that the market value of sex is zero and hence there is no damage in cases of rape.
Most people don't charge when they beat you bloody, and yet assault is still illegal.
Bad analogies, it seems, are not exclusive to /.
Yeah, but we deal in bulk here.
There is no "CC license" (Score:2)
Creative Commons is a set of licenses that vary significantly. There is no single "Creative Commons license".
In this particular case, the license in question is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 [creativecommons.org].
The differences between the licenses are important because some of the CC licenses permit the kind of use that this case was about, and the particular license he used does not.
Misleading to say 'binding' (Score:2)
To say that this (true, permissive) license is 'binding' could create false 'precedents' about restrictive contractual pseudo-'licenses' that companies like Microsoft purport to hoist on people after they've p
Dutch Uncles (Score:2)
Just a friendly reminder.... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:this thread is useless... (Score:2)
On idiocy and the American Dream.. (Score:1)
Yet another example of why it sucks to live in America: the idiocy in the air is thick as pea soup..
Indeed- you are correct and clearly representative of this position.
America is the land of Opportunity not the land of free-software-and-candy-for-everyone.
What real American would sit on his hind quarters waiting for his verison of the American Dream to be handed to him? In order to realize the American Dream one has to make it a priority in his
Re:On idiocy and the American Dream.. (Score:1)