Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public apology

Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by sago on Saturday July 16, 2016 @12:10PM (#12106790)

Case law on CC is very minimal so far [0], so this hasn't been explored in court.

ShareAlike is intentionally copyleft, yes. But it isn't clear what would constitute the 'derivative work'. If you had a glimpse of the photo in the movie with a 'Ken Burns' effect, would releasing a CC 2 sec video of that effect applied to the image be okay? Probably. But who knows if anyone would succeed in suing you to either CC the whole film, or pay for another form of license.

Is an article containing an image, used in its original form derivative? Probably not, the Wikipedia citation creator explicitly gives you this option: if you don't modify the image, only use it, then it doesn't prompt you to fill out the derivative information. Obviously that's not in any way legally binding, but gives an indication of how things tend to be used.

[0] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Law

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by icebraining on Saturday July 16, 2016 @12:53PM (#12106961)

There's plenty of case law regarding derivative works; it's not CC specific, but why would it have to be? Either the license is valid or it's a straight-up copyright infringement.

For example, there's case law regarding the use of a photo in a movie: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by sago on Saturday July 16, 2016 @09:43PM (#12108664)

You may have a much better knowledge than I (wouldn't be hard). But that example doesn't quite answer the question. If a work is derivative, what is the extent of the derivative work, for the purpose of copyleft? Can you answer that without specific case law on copyleft licenses?

[ Parent | on HN ]