Comments on: Family Sues Virgin mobile over use of Creative Commons licensed picture http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/ Top Technology news Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:30:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: beanluc http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-246859 beanluc Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:00:14 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-246859 phillipe, the important part is not that "Flickr is public and 2Pad is private". The important part is that 2Pad's terms of service say nothing at all about the copyrights of the content they store on your behalf. 2Pad doesn't encourage you, or even provide any way for you, to relinquish any of your rights as part of using their service. In fact, their terms of service provide you with instructions about how to get their help if you find that someone is mis-using your content which 2Pad hosted or you. Flickr, on the other hand, encourages copyright holders and content publishers to choose a "some rights reserved" license. Flickr even (I think) makes you opt out of a CC license - their default is that your work will be indicated as some flavor of CC rights grant, unless you specify otherwise. So, it's not at all as simple as "you can't google my 2Pad pictures". Even if I could find all your 2Pad pictures, or even if you posted them on a completely un-secured website, you retain all rights until you make a choice to grant some to me. Flickr just has an extremely loose sense of what indicates "choice" on a publisher's part. Nobody reads their Terms Of Service until it's too late, and many Flickr users are completely ignorant of the fact that Flickr has "helped" them to grant certain otherwise-reserved rights to anyone who finds their works on Flickr. phillipe, the important part is not that “Flickr is public and 2Pad is private”.

The important part is that 2Pad’s terms of service say nothing at all about the copyrights of the content they store on your behalf. 2Pad doesn’t encourage you, or even provide any way for you, to relinquish any of your rights as part of using their service. In fact, their terms of service provide you with instructions about how to get their help if you find that someone is mis-using your content which 2Pad hosted or you. Flickr, on the other hand, encourages copyright holders and content publishers to choose a “some rights reserved” license.

Flickr even (I think) makes you opt out of a CC license – their default is that your work will be indicated as some flavor of CC rights grant, unless you specify otherwise.

So, it’s not at all as simple as “you can’t google my 2Pad pictures”. Even if I could find all your 2Pad pictures, or even if you posted them on a completely un-secured website, you retain all rights until you make a choice to grant some to me. Flickr just has an extremely loose sense of what indicates “choice” on a publisher’s part. Nobody reads their Terms Of Service until it’s too late, and many Flickr users are completely ignorant of the fact that Flickr has “helped” them to grant certain otherwise-reserved rights to anyone who finds their works on Flickr.

]]> By: beanluc http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-246858 beanluc Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:49:38 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-246858 ” It is also unclear why the Creative Commons group is named.” "Isn’t that obvious? If they hadn’t used the unnecessary fancy license, and stuck to All Rights Reserved, the lawsuit would never have taken place." By "they", you can't mean Creative Commons. *They* didn't *Use* any license at all. You can't mean Virgin. *They* are being sued as a user, not a publisher. Whatever copyright terms *they* attached to their derivative work has nothing to do with this matter. So, you must mean Alice Chang's youth counselor. *They* used the CC license. I agree, Alice Chang's youth counselor chose a license which, for his and Alice's purposes, was "unnecessarily fancy". But, nobody's suing *him*, so, what are you talking about, saying the lawsuit wouldn't have taken place? He's the one who published Alice Chang's picture in the first place. Digger, you said it, man. ” It is also unclear why the Creative Commons group is named.”

“Isn’t that obvious?

If they hadn’t used the unnecessary fancy license, and stuck to All Rights Reserved, the lawsuit would never have taken place.”

By “they”, you can’t mean Creative Commons. *They* didn’t *Use* any license at all.

You can’t mean Virgin. *They* are being sued as a user, not a publisher. Whatever copyright terms *they* attached to their derivative work has nothing to do with this matter.

So, you must mean Alice Chang’s youth counselor. *They* used the CC license. I agree, Alice Chang’s youth counselor chose a license which, for his and Alice’s purposes, was “unnecessarily fancy”. But, nobody’s suing *him*, so, what are you talking about, saying the lawsuit wouldn’t have taken place? He’s the one who published Alice Chang’s picture in the first place.

Digger, you said it, man.

]]> By: Digger http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-77672 Digger Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:05:56 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-77672 CC is confusing? Maybe if you're retarded. CC is confusing? Maybe if you’re retarded.

]]> By: philippe http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-43243 philippe Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:11:02 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-43243 I enjoy ahoto sharing web site but I'll never use it for my private photos, I'd rather use 2pad . I don't want anybody to be able to see my photos. I want to decide exactly who will get them and I want to personalize the comments according to each recipient. In this case she will not have problem with Virgin. Flickr is public 2Pad is Private I enjoy ahoto sharing web site but I’ll never use it for my private photos, I’d rather use 2pad .
I don’t want anybody to be able to see my photos. I want to decide exactly who will get them and I want to personalize the comments according to each recipient. In this case she will not have problem with Virgin. Flickr is public 2Pad is Private

]]> By: philippe http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-43242 philippe Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:09:16 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-43242 I enjoy Flickr but I'll never use it for my private photos, I'd rather use 2pad . I don't want anybody to be able to see my family photos. I want to decide exactly who will get them and I want to personalize the comments according to each recipient. In this case she will not have problem with Virgin. Flickr is public 2Pad is Private Then I use www.2pad.com. I enjoy Flickr but I’ll never use it for my private photos, I’d rather use 2pad .
I don’t want anybody to be able to see my family photos. I want to decide exactly who will get them and I want to personalize the comments according to each recipient. In this case she will not have problem with Virgin. Flickr is public 2Pad is Private
Then I use http://www.2pad.com.

]]> By: Paulo http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-33850 Paulo Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:15:59 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-33850 " It is also unclear why the Creative Commons group is named." Isn't that obvious? If they hadn't used the unnecessary fancy license, and stuck to All Rights Reserved, the lawsuit would never have taken place. And if all the photographs Virgin used were All Rights Reserved - > 100 people would have been paid! CC is confusing and useless - get rid. ” It is also unclear why the Creative Commons group is named.”

Isn’t that obvious?

If they hadn’t used the unnecessary fancy license, and stuck to All Rights Reserved, the lawsuit would never have taken place.

And if all the photographs Virgin used were All Rights Reserved – > 100 people would have been paid!

CC is confusing and useless – get rid.

]]> By: Sean P. Aune http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-33004 Sean P. Aune Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:01:46 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-33004 ee: No. Use for journalistic purposes falls under "Fair Use". ee:

No. Use for journalistic purposes falls under “Fair Use”.

]]> By: ee http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-32305 ee Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:26:57 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/09/21/family-sues-virgin-mobile-over-use-of-creative-commons-licensed-picture/#comment-32305 yeah, if the family sees the picture of the girl again here then you may be included in the lawsuit?? yeah, if the family sees the picture of the girl again here then you may be included in the lawsuit??

]]>