Relicensing after cc-by-2.0 licence breach

The short version: If I breach the CC licence terms, can I
simply 
re-licence the work by bringing myself back into compliance,
or have I 
rendered myself permanently unable to use that work?

Here's the story that lead to that question:

I help to run www.geograph.org.ok, a growing archive of
300,000+ CC 
licenced photos of the UK and Ireland. We ask all
contributors to adopt 
a cc-by-sa 2.0 licence on their submissions.

A photo contributor changed their attribution credit from
their name to 
"All Rights Reserved" which naturally confused
site visitors and in 
particular, users of our image feeds. We assumed the
contributor now 
wished to have their attribution removed, and so changed the
attribution 
to "uncredited".

This was an unfortunate error on our part, and when it was
brought to my 
attention by the contributor I immediately restored the
original credit.

However, the contributor now asserts we have breached the
licence and 
must remove his photographs. My counterclaim is the works
are 
permanently available to anyone who wishes to comply with
their terms. 
By restoring the credit, we have, in effect, simply
re-licenced the 
works from the global pool of CC works.

I'm pretty sure I'm right, but happy to hear confirmation
either way....


Paul Dixon
Geograph Project

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

hey paul,

so the definition of "You" under the license
contemplates that a  
licensee may continue to use the work despite a previous
violation  
but it's kind of conditional on whether the licensor is
agreeable to  
that (""You" means an individual or entity
exercising rights under  
this License who has not previously violated the terms of
this  
License with respect to the Work, or who has received
express  
permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this
License  
despite a previous violation.")

i can certainly see your argument, if the work is available 

elsewhere, that you have simple taken out a new license with
respect  
the work and are not yet in violation of those
terms...certainly,  
once you violate the license your license to use the work
terminates  
and your use becomes infringing unless you otherwise obtain 

permission to use the work.

one question i do have though is whether your site is using
the  
images under the terms of the CC license or whether you are
using it  
under separate terms of use & it is the public who come
across it who  
use it under the CC license (this latter arrangement is how
flickr  
operates).  in that case, what the CC license says becomes
irrelevant  
and its all down to your terms of use.

at the end of the day though, if someone doesn't want you to
 
distribute their image any more, regardless of who is right
and who  
is wrong, why do it? they reduce their exposure and you get
a hassle  
free inbox!!

rgds, mia

On Feb 28, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Paul Dixon wrote:

> The short version: If I breach the CC licence terms,
can I simply
> re-licence the work by bringing myself back into
compliance, or have I
> rendered myself permanently unable to use that work?
>
> Here's the story that lead to that question:
>
> I help to run www.geograph.org.ok, a growing archive of
300,000+ CC
> licenced photos of the UK and Ireland. We ask all
contributors to  
> adopt
> a cc-by-sa 2.0 licence on their submissions.
>
> A photo contributor changed their attribution credit
from their  
> name to
> "All Rights Reserved" which naturally
confused site visitors and in
> particular, users of our image feeds. We assumed the
contributor now
> wished to have their attribution removed, and so
changed the  
> attribution
> to "uncredited".
>
> This was an unfortunate error on our part, and when it
was brought  
> to my
> attention by the contributor I immediately restored the
original  
> credit.
>
> However, the contributor now asserts we have breached
the licence and
> must remove his photographs. My counterclaim is the
works are
> permanently available to anyone who wishes to comply
with their terms.
> By restoring the credit, we have, in effect, simply
re-licenced the
> works from the global pool of CC works.
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm right, but happy to hear
confirmation either  
> way....
>
>
> Paul Dixon
> Geograph Project
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community


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

Mia Garlick wrote:
> one question i do have though is whether your site is
using the  
> images under the terms of the CC license or whether you
are using it  
> under separate terms of use & it is the public who
come across it who  
> use it under the CC license (this latter arrangement is
how flickr  
> operates).  in that case, what the CC license says
becomes irrelevant  
> and its all down to your terms of use.
>   
We regard ourselves as using the licence yes.

> at the end of the day though, if someone doesn't want
you to  
> distribute their image any more, regardless of who is
right and who  
> is wrong, why do it? they reduce their exposure and you
get a hassle  
> free inbox!!
>   
A good question. The aim of the project is to produce a
permanent, 
freely available archive of geographically relevant
photographs. The CC 
licence seems an excellent fit for these aims. The site
isn't about 
providing a personal Flickr-like showcase for ones photos,
it is about 
the archive as a whole. Think of it as dropping images into
a time 
capsule for future generations. The contributor in question
has 
submitted over 700 images. We have, in the past, pulled a
smaller number 
of images for a quiet life, but there has to come a point
when we have 
to say "hold on, we chose this licence for a
reason".

However, in this case, we've done wrong and may have to take
that hit. 
We get 6000 fresh images a week after all. Even so, I'd
rather not erode 
the archive if it can be helped.

Paul



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

On Wed, 2007-28-02 at 22:54 +0000, Paul Dixon wrote:
> Mia Garlick wrote:

> However, in this case, we've done wrong and may have to
take that hit. 
> We get 6000 fresh images a week after all. Even so, I'd
rather not erode 
> the archive if it can be helped.

You have a problem user; nobody changes their attribution to
"All Rights
Reserved" without the intention to be a jerk.

My advice: get rid of their photos, say thanks anyways,
remind them that
they're welcome to re-upload when and if they feel like it,
and then get
them out of your hair.

Every contributor to an Open Content project is valuable and
valued. No
contributor gets the right to be distracting and
disruptive.

~Evan


-- 
Evan Prodromou -- http://evan.prodromou.nam
e/

"By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have
their counterpart
of on the same terms." -- Walt Whitman, "Song of
Myself"

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

Mia, I meant to pick on this in my earlier reply...

> so the definition of "You" under the license
contemplates that a  
> licensee may continue to use the work despite a
previous violation  
> but it's kind of conditional on whether the licensor is
agreeable to  
> that ...
As I understand it, the licence doesn't form a contract, it
is simply an 
open agreement to everyone - if you abide by X, I'll let you
do Y, and 
if you stop doing X, then you will have to stop doing Y too,
or 
appropriate action can be taken under copyright law.

I don't see that it is in any way conditional on the
licensor having to 
agree a licence again. One doesn't need normally need to
reach agreement 
with a licensor to exercise the CC licence terms.

I'm interested in knowing the right answer here,
irrespective of the 
questions about the motives of the licensor or whether we
should or 
should not remove the pictures

Paul.

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

ah the ol' license v. contract debate...not sure that i
understand  
how that is relevant to this discussion because even if it
is a  
license, it still says in clause 7(a):

"This License and the rights granted hereunder will
terminate  
automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this
License."

thus, if you no longer have permission to use if you breach
the  
license terms.  however, the license contemplates that you
may again  
secure permission from the licensor.

On Mar 1, 2007, at 2:12 AM, Paul Dixon wrote:

> Mia, I meant to pick on this in my earlier reply...
>
>> so the definition of "You" under the
license contemplates that a
>> licensee may continue to use the work despite a
previous violation
>> but it's kind of conditional on whether the
licensor is agreeable to
>> that ...
> As I understand it, the licence doesn't form a
contract, it is  
> simply an
> open agreement to everyone - if you abide by X, I'll
let you do Y, and
> if you stop doing X, then you will have to stop doing Y
too, or
> appropriate action can be taken under copyright law.
>
> I don't see that it is in any way conditional on the
licensor  
> having to
> agree a licence again. One doesn't need normally need
to reach  
> agreement
> with a licensor to exercise the CC licence terms.
>
> I'm interested in knowing the right answer here,
irrespective of the
> questions about the motives of the licensor or whether
we should or
> should not remove the pictures
>
> Paul.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community


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

On Thursday 01 March 2007 08:29 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> ah the ol' license v. contract debate...not sure that i
understand
> how that is relevant to this discussion because even if
it is a
> license, it still says in clause 7(a):
>
> "This License and the rights granted hereunder
will terminate
> automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of
this License."
>
> thus, if you no longer have permission to use if you
breach the
> license terms.  however, the license contemplates that
you may again
> secure permission from the licensor.

Perhaps I misread, but isn't it sort of asking if you get
the license when you 
get a copy, even if you lose those rights by breach, do you
get them again 
the next time you get another copy from someone else?

all the best,

drew
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 2:12 AM, Paul Dixon wrote:
> > Mia, I meant to pick on this in my earlier
reply...
> >
> >> so the definition of "You" under the
license contemplates that a
> >> licensee may continue to use the work despite
a previous violation
> >> but it's kind of conditional on whether the
licensor is agreeable to
> >> that ...
> >
> > As I understand it, the licence doesn't form a
contract, it is
> > simply an
> > open agreement to everyone - if you abide by X,
I'll let you do Y, and
> > if you stop doing X, then you will have to stop
doing Y too, or
> > appropriate action can be taken under copyright
law.
> >
> > I don't see that it is in any way conditional on
the licensor
> > having to
> > agree a licence again. One doesn't need normally
need to reach
> > agreement
> > with a licensor to exercise the CC licence terms.
> >
> > I'm interested in knowing the right answer here,
irrespective of the
> > questions about the motives of the licensor or
whether we should or
> > should not remove the pictures
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

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


-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 01 March 2007 08:29 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
>   
>> ah the ol' license v. contract debate...not sure
that i understand
>> how that is relevant to this discussion because
even if it is a
>> license, it still says in clause 7(a):
>>
>> "This License and the rights granted hereunder
will terminate
>> automatically upon any breach by You of the terms
of this License."
>>     

I mentioned that because the licensor says that once the
licence has 
terminated only further negotiation can secure those rights
again.  My 
argument is that the works are "out there", many
people have their own 
independant backup archives. Each of those people have a
copy and are 
free to distribute and display them. The question is, can
they now 
distribute them to *us*, or are we now permanently unable to
use those 
works.

I'm not disputing we breached the licence, but whether we
can continue 
to exercise the licence by bringing ourselves back into
compliance 
(which was done within minutes of being notified)


>> thus, if you no longer have permission to use if
you breach the
>> license terms.  however, the license contemplates
that you may again
>> secure permission from the licensor.
>>     
>
> Perhaps I misread, but isn't it sort of asking if you
get the license when you 
> get a copy, even if you lose those rights by breach, do
you get them again 
> the next time you get another copy from someone else?
Exactly!

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