[okfn-discuss] Creative Commons NonCommercial and NoDerivativesDiscussion

Wed Dec 19 09:21:07 UTC 2012

Michael

If the images are complete and unmodified, perhaps the Guide would be considered a "Collection"/"Collective Work" rather than a "Derivative Work"/"Adaptation", especially if the text is original content? - which case the SA obligation would not apply? (I could not find a clear example on this on the Creative Commons Wiki FAQ)

Of course the BY obligations would still apply to a Collection ....

Regards

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Michael Bauer
Sent: 18 December 2012 21:35
To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] Creative Commons NonCommercial and NoDerivativesDiscussion

Everyone,

Actually there is a Case in Austria I didn't pursue so far (mainly because it's not my CC-By-SA content). 

I recently bought a Hiking Guide (released with traditional Copyright) It contains a series of images (actually most) from WikiPedia CC-By-SA. By consequence the Book must be an open license - it isn't.

I have yet to dig out the images affected and contact the license owners about this. Anyone want to join in?

Michael

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:16:16PM +0000, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Miller, Andrew (ELS-OXF) < 
> andrew.miller at elsevier.com> wrote:
> 
> > How would a private individual, perhaps without much money, 
> > realistically ‘go after’ such transgressors?
> >
> >
> >
> Exactly this happened to me earlier this year. Springer-Verlag who are 
> an STM publisher like Elsevier took images I had published as CC-BY, 
> stamped "Copyright Springer" on them and offered them for sale at 60 USD per image.
> 
> I went straight to the web  and blogged this daily - exposing the 
> scope of Springer's claim to material that they did not own. This 
> included CC-BY images in Wikipedia. See 
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/07/springergate-i-try-to-explain
> -springerimages-and-my-continuing-concern/and
> several blog posts previous. Springer retracted over a period of weeks 
> and got a significant amount of publicity, including in Wikip(m)edia 
> outlets.
> 
> I do not know how seriously Elsevier regard other people's copyright. 
> I have been to Elsevier presentations where apparently third party 
> copyright material has been shown, asked whether Elsevier had obtained 
> permission and am yet to get a reply. If it happens to me I shall make 
> it seriously public. I shall not divulge my subsequent strategy but I 
> do not believe I will be powerless.
> 
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069

> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss

-- 
Data Wrangler with the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKFN.org)
GPG/PGP key: http://tentacleriot.eu/mihi.asc
Twitter: @mihi_tr Skype: mihi_tr

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss