On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Jon Davis <wiki(a)konsoletek.com> wrote:
"Does the contract (private use only for photos)
implicitly agreed to by
Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA
license" -- In my recollection, the answer is no. It is similar to someone
taking a picture where it says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY". They might be breaking
someones rules, and could risk getting thrown out, but the picture is still
theirs to keep. The IOC could sue the photographer for breach of contract
(which would be hilarious to watch the PR beating they get for that), but
once again, that doesn't effect us. In short, contracts can be broken, laws
can't.
Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a
contract. I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the
copyright to his photos. But agreeing to terms and conditions is
different from walking past a "no photos" sign. Contracts can be
broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts.
And not that I need to remind this crew, but the CC
license is
non-revocable, so the IOC is too late. The photographer licensed his image
under CC, and that is the end of it. You can change the license back on
Flickr, but that doesn't mean it isn't still legally available under CC.
That is the _entire_ reason we have the Flickr Reviewer bot.
The IOC's argument, I imagine, would not be that the CC license should
be revoked, but that it was never valid in the first place since, by
agreeing to a prior contract, Giles had given up the right to enter
into certain other kinds of contracts for the photos he took. I don't
think that's right, but it seems more complicated than typical cases
of against-the-rules photography and attempts to revoke licenses.
-Sage