cc license use on participatory art sites, infringement and confusion

Hello,

A friend of mine has sent me a link to a person complaining
that a site 
called Buzznet allows people to upload works by others as
their own, and 
on top of that mark them as CC licensed. The gist of the
criticism is 
that though uploading somebody else's work is bad and
immoral, at least 
uner normal copyright you do not make it easily available.
So this is, I 
think, an important argument for us - that infringement with
the later 
use of CC licenses is worse for the original artist than
just infringement.
htt
p://kmye-chan.deviantart.com/journal/10844224/

I write about this for two reasons. Firstly, I am a bit
shocked by how 
this person, clearly knowledgeable just a bit about
copyrights, gets 
confused about CC - at some point s/he mentions a license
called "Common 
Creative - Paternity 0.1" - no idea what that's
supposed to be.

Secondly, the person is right that on Buzznet, a site where
people 
basically set up account to post things, a bit like flickr,
but more 
youth / fan oriented, people will post anything - game
screenshots, 
anime fragments, you name a copyrighted work they might have
it, and 
then license it away under CC (as it also seems that CC
licensing is a 
default option, but I did not check). So this is a problem,
because we 
have an interface that sort of supports batch infringement
and confusion.

So I think CC needs to really work with platforms that offer
CC 
licensing in the interface. Flickr finally managed to
improve licensing 
description to make it a bit more clear, but when you
upload, you don't 
get relevant info that helps you understand what you're
doing with CC 
licenses, the way you get with the normal CC licensing
engine. And even 
that engine could be improved - this has been mentioned
several times, 
that the selection process should include a reminder about
not licensing 
other's works and so on (this piece of advice is currently
burried 
somewhere in the FAQ).

Otherwise we might reach a point where CC is recognized as
"something to 
do", the license use counter will be ticking like
crazy, but the whole 
pool of works will be slightly spoiled, not a good
situation. I think 
education needs to be tightly coupled with technical means
(as always!!).

best,

Alek Tarkowski

-- 
koordynator / Public Lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland

(+48) 889 660 444
http://creativecommons.pl
skype:alektarkowski

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Alek Tarkowski wrote:
> A friend of mine has sent me a link to a person
complaining that a site
> called Buzznet allows people to upload works by others
as their own, and
> on top of that mark them as CC licensed. The gist of
the criticism is
> that though uploading somebody else's work is bad and
immoral, at least
> uner normal copyright you do not make it easily
available. So this is, I
> think, an important argument for us - that infringement
with the later
> use of CC licenses is worse for the original artist
than just infringement.

Well, it probably causes more confusion.

But of course a "license" granted by someone who
has no rights in the
work isn't legally valid. Buzznet can say whatever they like
in their
usage agreement, but they actually are liable for copyright
infringements when they make them (you aren't signatory to
that
agreement, anyway!)  So, if someone illegally posts a work
and claims it
under a CC license, that doesn't actually mean it *is* under
a CC
license, so the fear that people who download the work and
use it
according to the terms of that license are legally entitled
to, is not
founded (CC licensing may increase the probability of such
behavior, but
users do have some obligation to use a little common sense).

I have, in a similar vein, seen GPL or CC licensed KDE or
Gnome themes
which are based on licensed anime characters or other
copyrighted and/or
trademarked artwork. Clearly those are not actually legal,
whatever the
uploader may have thought.

There's a *lot* of bad attribution and infringement on the
web, whether
for CC licensed material or ARR.

Of course, IANAL, but this part seems fairly clearcut to me.

> I write about this for two reasons. Firstly, I am a bit
shocked by how
> this person, clearly knowledgeable just a bit about
copyrights, gets
> confused about CC - at some point s/he mentions a
license called "Common
> Creative - Paternity 0.1" - no idea what that's
supposed to be.

It must be the "Creative Commons Attribution 1.0"
license. Possibly
minced by multiple translation?

> So I think CC needs to really work with platforms that
offer CC
> licensing in the interface.

How exactly? Are you imagining some kind of certification
process to
recognize when a CC licensing interface is sufficiently
clear? Political
action/pressure? Angry letters? 

Sounds like something that might be interesting to explore
further, but
it needs specifics.

> Otherwise we might reach a point where CC is recognized
as "something to
> do", the license use counter will be ticking like
crazy, but the whole
> pool of works will be slightly spoiled, not a good
situation. I think
> education needs to be tightly coupled with technical
means (as always!!).

Agreed.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Quoting Terry Hancock <hancockanansispaceworks.com>:

> But of course a "license" granted by someone
who has no rights in the
> work isn't legally valid. Buzznet can say whatever they
like in their
> usage agreement, but they actually are liable for
copyright
> infringements when they make them (you aren't signatory
to that
> agreement, anyway!)  So, if someone illegally posts a
work and claims it
> under a CC license, that doesn't actually mean it *is*
under a CC
> license, so the fear that people who download the work
and use it
> according to the terms of that license are legally
entitled to, is not
> founded (CC licensing may increase the probability of
such behavior, but
> users do have some obligation to use a little common
sense).

The example I use is that at some point we will see someone
post Star Wars to
OurMedia under a CC license. I think the DMCA/EUCD
"safe harbo(u)r" provisions
mean that this isn't a problem for the host site (unless
they hep to tag the
work, perhaps?).

> I have, in a similar vein, seen GPL or CC licensed KDE
or Gnome themes
> which are based on licensed anime characters or other
copyrighted and/or
> trademarked artwork. Clearly those are not actually
legal, whatever the
> uploader may have thought.

Yes. In the US, Fan Art is copyright to the original
rightsholder. And then
there's the trademark angle.

Java's "Duke" mascot is Free now though. 

> There's a *lot* of bad attribution and infringement on
the web, whether
> for CC licensed material or ARR.

I did ask CC to put a notice in the licenses like the OGL
has, stating 
that you
can only license work that you hold the rights to. It's a
redundant statement,
but very useful to be able to point to when someone is
making that 
mistake. 

> How exactly? Are you imagining some kind of
certification process to
> recognize when a CC licensing interface is sufficiently
clear? Political
> action/pressure? Angry letters? 

I think standards for explaining this side of licensing, and
some PHP 
with good
warnings as part of the licensing process, would be a useful
resource.

Larger and more involved projects really should consider
FSF-style copyright
assignment which involves signing a legal document
identifying you as the
rightsholder. But more freewheeling remix projects probably
shouldn't do this.


>> Otherwise we might reach a point where CC is
recognized as "something to
>> do", the license use counter will be ticking
like crazy, but the whole
>> pool of works will be slightly spoiled, not a good
situation. I think
>> education needs to be tightly coupled with
technical means (as always!!).
>
> Agreed.

Part of the problem is that CC cannot redress the need to
remix 
non-CC-licensed
works. This is not CC's problem, it is society's problem,
but it will
occasinally express itself through mis-use of CC licenses.

Even some showcase CC-licensed works incorporate Fair Use
works in Fair 
Dealing
jurisdictions or use sample disks that don't play well with
CC. We need some
"clean roots" for free culture, large bodies of
rigorously checked work like
the FSF maintain for software.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community