Some people (especially Flickr users) may well have heard of this story already; an Australian ad campaign for Virgin Mobile Australia has been using photos (mainly CC licenced ones) from Flickr. It's causing some consternation not only because of the somewhat offensive content of some of the ads, but because the people behind the ad campaign didn't ask permission from the photographers - or perhaps more importantly, the subjects - before using the photos.
I just blogged about it if anyone's interested:
http://thoughtsfordeletion.blogspot.com/2007/07/free-culture-clash.html
Stephen Bain wrote:
Some people (especially Flickr users) may well have heard of this story already; an Australian ad campaign for Virgin Mobile Australia has been using photos (mainly CC licenced ones) from Flickr. It's causing some consternation not only because of the somewhat offensive content of some of the ads, but because the people behind the ad campaign didn't ask permission from the photographers - or perhaps more importantly, the subjects - before using the photos.
I just blogged about it if anyone's interested:
http://thoughtsfordeletion.blogspot.com/2007/07/free-culture-clash.html
Very interesting. Sadly, this will move people for non-commercial, while ShareAlike would stop such practises too, as we always recommended.
Now, i wonder what would happen if some of the flickr users changed its image from Cc-by to a more restrictive license. http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasu/289444685/ says it's Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Clearly incompatible with Virgin use. I see no trace that the image ever had another license (Google cache, archive.org...) We complain about flickr's MISSING of license history. Maybe Virgin had lawyers signining documents stating the license they see on it?
damon at teacherjames.com http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/#comment72157600562573779 is trying to make a case against Virgin. This will make a very important law precedent on free licenses, images and multiple countries. This really concerns commons.
When more news appear, please post them here.
Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:38:15 +0200:
Sadly, this will move people for non-commercial, while ShareAlike would stop such practises too, as we always recommended.
Why? They could release their campaign as cc-by-sa as well and it would work, right?
Regards,
Flo
On 7/24/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:38:15 +0200:
Sadly, this will move people for non-commercial, while ShareAlike would stop such practises too, as we always recommended.
Why? They could release their campaign as cc-by-sa as well and it would work, right?
Regards,
Flo
I don't think they are going to release their logo under anything aproaching a free licsense.
I've been wondering about that. AFAIK CC-licenses aren't about trade mark law. So, anyone else won't be able to use te logo even if it is part of a CC'd work, since it will be protected as a trade mark. Isn't it the same discussion as about the moral rights and personality rights? A free copyright-license doesn't mean you wave moral or personality rights (so, Virgin can't use the picture they used just by claiming it's CC), nor does it wave trade mark rights (so, we can't use Virgin's logo even if it would be part of a CC'd work).
-Fruggo
On 7/24/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:38:15
+0200:
Sadly, this will move people for non-commercial, while ShareAlike
would
stop such practises too, as we always recommended.
Why? They could release their campaign as cc-by-sa as well and it would
work, right?
Regards,
Flo
I don't think they are going to release their logo under anything aproaching a free licsense.
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 7/25/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
I've been wondering about that. AFAIK CC-licenses aren't about trade mark law. So, anyone else won't be able to use te logo even if it is part of a CC'd work, since it will be protected as a trade mark. Isn't it the same discussion as about the moral rights and personality rights? A free copyright-license doesn't mean you wave moral or personality rights (so, Virgin can't use the picture they used just by claiming it's CC), nor does it wave trade mark rights (so, we can't use Virgin's logo even if it would be part of a CC'd work).
Trademark law doesn't protect your mark in all places, only those in which there could be confusion. Thus, trademark owners like to consider the trademarked logo copyrighted as well, if possible (due to age, or national law on minimum requirements for copyrightability - many logos cannot be copyrighted in Germany, for instance).
-Matt
Wednesday, 25 July 2007, Fruggo wrote:
I've been wondering about that. AFAIK CC-licenses aren't about trade mark law. So, anyone else won't be able to use te logo even if it is part of a CC'd work, since it will be protected as a trade mark. Isn't it the same discussion as about the moral rights and personality rights? A free copyright-license doesn't mean you wave moral or personality rights (so, Virgin can't use the picture they used just by claiming it's CC), nor does it wave trade mark rights (so, we can't use Virgin's logo even if it would be part of a CC'd work).
We could use it in ways which do not infringe on their trademark rights but which would infringe on their copyright were it not for the free license. For example, a free license would enable it to be hosted in an image database such as Commons, which would not otherwise be permitted, even under the fair use clause.
This is indeed similar to how one cannot images of people to defame them even if the images are free from a copyright perspective.
In reality, most large corporations are still unlikely to release their copyrighted trademarks under free copyright licenses, but if they choose to do so in order to be able to use a copyleft-licensed work, then everybody wins. For me, this hope that others will be persuaded to share equally, for free or for profit, is a much more compelling argument in favour of copyleft licenses than protectionist arguments based on noncommercial ideals.
(I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)
On 26/07/07, Alex Nordstrom lx@se.linux.org wrote:
In reality, most large corporations are still unlikely to release their copyrighted trademarks under free copyright licenses, but if they choose to do so in order to be able to use a copyleft-licensed work, then everybody wins.
If even the leaders of the open content can't bring themselves to do this, I can't see anyone else trying it out. I think the world is yet to see a copyleft-ish license that is suitable for logos. Well, it would have to have a ND condition, wouldn't it? So maybe it's an impossible dream.
Brianna
On 7/25/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
I've been wondering about that. AFAIK CC-licenses aren't about trade mark law. So, anyone else won't be able to use te logo even if it is part of a CC'd work, since it will be protected as a trade mark. Isn't it the same discussion as about the moral rights and personality rights? A free copyright-license doesn't mean you wave moral or personality rights (so, Virgin can't use the picture they used just by claiming it's CC), nor does it wave trade mark rights (so, we can't use Virgin's logo even if it would be part of a CC'd work).
-Fruggo
If the logo was used as a part of the logo would could use the logo just not to sell anything that Virgin sells (ok a bit more complicated but that is the basics).
On 7/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If the logo was used as a part of the logo would could use the logo just not to sell anything that Virgin sells (ok a bit more complicated but that is the basics).
Or in any way that might indicate affiliation with Virgin, approval by them, or anything of the sort - that's the big other area.
-Matt
On 23/07/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Some people (especially Flickr users) may well have heard of this story already; an Australian ad campaign for Virgin Mobile Australia has been using photos (mainly CC licenced ones) from Flickr. It's causing some consternation not only because of the somewhat offensive content of some of the ads, but because the people behind the ad campaign didn't ask permission from the photographers - or perhaps more importantly, the subjects - before using the photos.
This is a pretty interesting case. It shows far there is to go in terms of educating people about copyleft and the Creative Commons licenses in particular - both people who choose to use the licenses for their own work, and others who reuse CC-licensed work.
I can't imagine Virgin is so cheap that wouldn't pay for a photographer, so it must be part of their 'we're edgy' strategy.
It will be interesting to see if the subjects or photographers take any legal action. Then the real fun will start.
cheers Brianna
On 7/26/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
This is a pretty interesting case. It shows far there is to go in terms of educating people about copyleft and the Creative Commons licenses in particular - both people who choose to use the licenses for their own work, and others who reuse CC-licensed work.
One thing I should have noted is that most of the pictures used were not actually under copyleft licences (that's the "Share Alike" type ones in CC parlance), just ones like CC-BY. In terms of educating people, making sure that people are aware of the implications of copyleft terms in licences and the protection that they provide over other free licences has got to be near the top of the list.
I did find at least one picture used in the campaign which was under CC-BY-SA (the best of the CC licences from a free culture perspective) so now the Virgin Mobile logo is indeed available under CC-BY-SA (or a compatible alternative). The logo remains protected by trademark of course.
On 26/07/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I did find at least one picture used in the campaign which was under CC-BY-SA (the best of the CC licences from a free culture perspective) so now the Virgin Mobile logo is indeed available under CC-BY-SA (or a compatible alternative). The logo remains protected by trademark of course.
LOL. Was it CC-BY-SA at the time, or has it been changed retroactively?
Anyone feel like testing this out? :) What interesting derivatives could we think up?
Anyone in a friendly jurisdiction that doesn't recognise trademark law or something? :)
cheers Brianna
On 7/26/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I did find at least one picture used in the campaign which was under CC-BY-SA (the best of the CC licences from a free culture perspective) so now the Virgin Mobile logo is indeed available under CC-BY-SA (or a compatible alternative). The logo remains protected by trademark of course.
Which one? If we can confirm with the author that it was CC-BY-SA at the time we might wish to write to Virgin Mobile congratulating them on demonstrating their commitment to free culture by releasing their logo under a free license.
2007/7/26, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
I did find at least one picture used in the campaign which was under CC-BY-SA (the best of the CC licences from a free culture perspective) so now the Virgin Mobile logo is indeed available under CC-BY-SA (or a compatible alternative). The logo remains protected by trademark of course.
I'm afraid it does not. I think including the picture doesn't make the ad CC-BY-SA; rather, it makes the ad a copyright violation.
On 7/26/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid it does not. I think including the picture doesn't make the ad CC-BY-SA; rather, it makes the ad a copyright violation.
It's only a violation if they didn't intend on releasing under cc-by-sa and, as geni says, we have no reason to believe they would violate the license so :)
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 7/26/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid it does not. I think including the picture doesn't make the ad CC-BY-SA; rather, it makes the ad a copyright violation.
One of the two yes.
geni wrote:
On 7/26/07, Andre Engels wrote:
I'm afraid it does not. I think including the picture doesn't make the ad CC-BY-SA; rather, it makes the ad a copyright violation.
One of the two yes.
Right.
Which one was it?
As I already sent to the list http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasu/289444685/ now has Cc-by-nc-sa. Much more incompatible if it wasn't changed after.