The Judge released her decision today in our lawsuit against a dutch gossip rag.
The case was about two issues:
- Endangering our 15 year old daughter by publishing the name and
location of her school and her means of transport to and from school.
- Reproduction of pictures I own and publish on flickr under the
creative commons ‘attribution-non commercial-share alike’ license.
The endandgerment claim was dismissed. As I have said before, I don’t
like the idea of anyone following my daughter, regardless of intentions.
If this happens again I will take matters into my own hands.
Regarding the copyright claim, the judge ruled in our favour,
and ordered the mag not to use my copyrighted pictures again. If they do they
will be fined 1000 euros (about $1200) for each photo they use
without permission.
Obvously the Dutch court does not value new media property and
ownership very highly, but the creative commons copyright does hold up!
To the Dutch media, who are looking for a response:
“Ik ben opgekomen voor mijn rechten en veiligheid van mijn gezin. Hoewel ik blij ben dat mijn intellectuele eigendom door de rechter wordt beschermd, kan ik niet begrijpen dat zij toestaat dat een vent met een kamera mijn minderjarige dochter mag achtervolgen. Alle ouders voelen dit. Ik neem mijn eigen maatregelen om dit te bestrijden.”
Hey Adam,
Good to know the CC license holds up! To bad about the endandgerment claim. How about the foto’s they’ve already used?
Only 1000 euros - come on.
No penalty for photos used, no retraction. Mainly, according to the judge, because we are cdlebrities and these were ‘really cute vacation pictures’ that show no commercial value. Go figure.
Hi Adam,
So the judge gives you 500 euro less then the gossip magazine.?? Listen to you tomorriow…
Greetings Boudewijn
it was NOT “in your favor”. You lost this lawsuit, mate. Why don’t you just admit it pal?
Well, after all the shouting you and your wife did on the dsc, it seems that you’ve lost the case. You don’t show your best side, Adam, by not admitting that. Was your lawyer bad, or didn’t you have a case? The full verdict is on the net now and it seems that the judge says ‘that you didn’t make your point’ and btw you need to pay the costs of the trial. Wow, what a loss!
Adam,
Gefeliciteerd voor your judgment. Will the magazine be required to reimburse your legal expenses, as is typically the case under Dutch law?
Although I am not a licensed Dutch lawyer, I have studied law at the U.v.A., and I am an expert in EU and US intellectual property laws. I was not aware that NL had incorporated the ‘public figure’ doctrine into Dutch law. Interesting. The public figure doctrine has not been adopted by most European national law systems.
Your victory on behalf of Creative Commons is important and noteworthy. Please consider ordering a transcript of the decision and publishing it (in Dutch and English) for scholars and attorneys. We are all in your debt for taking on the fight.
My free legal advice to you, is to keep your threats private. I share your desire to ‘not get mad, get even.’ And of course you are upset that your family’s safety was not vindicated by the court, but judges rarely provide us the kind of emotional release we would like. Keep your threats to yourself, be vigilant, show you care, and your family will feel safe.
Come and take a vacation here in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, and I guarantee you won’t be bothered!
Met vriendilicke groeten,
Michael Weisman, JD, LLM
@Robbert & CSB: Excuse me? I won on the breach of copyright! The judge said I didn’t convince her of the value of the stolen material. That is of course subjective.
I clearly stated the endangerment claim was dismissed.
BTW, both parties have to pay their own costs.
Get your facts straight.
A quick question: csb; why do you hate everything adam curry does?
AdamC: you’ve lost in a sense because “No penalty for photos used, no retraction” and the price for future use of photos is pathetic, simply pathetic. So overall result is that you lost but it may feel that you won. No penalty and totaly cheap price for future violations = loss.
of course you got your publicity shtick so in total you won “publicity-wise”… but as far as this case is concerned you lost badly. you really must live in self-denial not to see it, mate!
Phil: it’s not true.
csb, everything you do is critizising AC for what he does and what he says. in my oppinion(im not a lawyer or anything) adam won the case but the magazine was’nt fined for using the photos.
eey congrats for winning the license part of the case unfortunatly the judge didn’t have teh smae idea as you about some freack folowing your dauchter.
obbert why do yousay that his durch isn’t that good anymore?? i found a artikle on the net about the verdict and is says the same as adam does that at point 1 indangermetn of his daughter the judge didn'’t agreed on that but she did about teh pictures he only didn’t got the 10.000 euro and a new rectification but they are not allowed to use his pictures again with out asking him first.
eric
Pictures taken in US by US citizen and hosted on US web site. Would it have been possible to pick US as a venue?
@Kore: The violation was committed in Holland.
Phil: you said “adam won the case but the magazine was’nt fined for using the photos.”… so operation succeded but patient is dead or in other words: they are not penalized for wrong doing. He has won formally but he lost practically.
[…] What happens if you sue some gossip magazine who took all your Non-Commercial-Use Creative-Commons licensed photos from your Flickr account, then published them to make a profit? Apparently, the magazine gets told that they are very naughty, and will be given an incredibly minor fine if they do it again. So Creative Commons stands up in court, but this judgement means it’s effectively useless in practice. Great. Also, said magazine is apparently allowed to publish details of your child’s school, and the transport methods s/he uses to get there and back, without any punishment at all. […]
CSB, I was never out for money as I clearly stated before the lawsuit. I’m happy that we won. Don’t need the money, but it would have been a nice deterrent for future copyright abuse. 1000 euros may be worth it for gossip mags.
Sad to hear about the Christina case.
What are you planning to do with teh 1000 buxx, eeh i mean bucks =]
BTW, here’s a picture of the editor who stole the pictures. Nice to know he is allowed to instruct creepy guys in raincoats to follow my daughter.
csb; he never needed the money…
ac: im new with this rss-stuff, and just want to say: glad you are interraction with your fans
Pathetic … how in the world CAN they throw out the endangerment clause (arrgghh) … sometimes I wonder if judges even consider people and safety. So in essence, the judge said people could stalk your daughter, but as long as they don’t do anything … there is nothing wrong with it … that’s just not right!!!
I think it is important to seperate the issues of copyright infingment, money damages, and public figure doctrine.
In the US, Adam would not have had a prayer IMHO, on either count, because he is/was a celebritiy (as is his wife.) Paparazzi can follow his wife or daughter shopping, at the beach, school, etc. subject only to laws against trespass. We are all familiar with the drill. Under the public figure doctrine, Adam would have had a slim chance of success in the US.
Same for the copyright infringement, since they would argue that the photos are items of interest to the public, and that is a fair use exception to copyright protection. In other words, its newsworthy, so they can use them in a news context.
Damages for infringement are not necessarily measured by what you could sell them for. The idea of damages is not always to ‘make whole,’ sometimes it is just to make a point to prevent future infringement. Keep in mind the nature of copyright law: it is NOT a property right, it is a limited government license to protect certain kinds of property against use by others for a limited period of time. That is all it is. By putting photos on flickr, Adam is making them public in a way, but he is controlling the license with creative commons in addition to statutory copyright protections, because creative commons gives him more choice over how the license may be used.
Mike Weisman JD, LLM
I’m sure that this is going to be analyzed by far superior minds than mine, but as the first ambulance chaser on the scene, I do have some inital thoughts:
1) I think that whether or not this can be characterized as a “win” or “loss” really depends on what your goals were. If this was about establishing a precident that a CC license needs to be respected, and that there are repercussions when that license is violated then this is a big time win for establishing case law. From a legal perspective, what’s fantastic about this decision is that its not something that an “Average Joe” would have the resources to pursue. Now, if this is done again, the groundwork is already laid. Remember - this had the potential to go very badly, too, as “Curry” could have become synonymous with an absolute devaluation in a CC license, and that would have been very bad.
2) I always say to my clients, “you’re never going to get them to apologize, all I can do is get you money.” Here, its my impression (and I could be wrong) that it was never about the money, and I don’t think an apology would have been enough either. They hurt you (i.e. privacy and ethically) and now you’ve hurt them.The bad press alone is damaging to a magazine.
3) I do think that the Judge blew it on the issue of damages. Obviously, I haven’t read the decision and I’m not planning on reading it….but I don’t find her rationale very clear. Is she saying that if a CC license is violated twice, then the value of the violation is $1,200. Why isn’t one violation $600.00? Is the first violation free? Where does that number come from anyway? Does the $1,200 represent compensatory or punitive damages? Why is the value of a swiped picture less than the value of a swiped song? I don’t know this doesn’t feel right to me, and may be worth questioning your attorneys about, if you wanted to pursue this further. This may be the other end of the spectrum - if an “Average Joe” were before her on the same claim, or if they weren’t “cute” pictures of a celebrity, then would have they had a different value?
3) The endangerment claim. I think this one is left up to interpretation of the Dutch statutes or case law, which I know nothing about. As this tends to have the smell of a criminal violation, I wonder if there was a consideration given to the mindset of the magazine when they committed the alleged violation - i.e., mens rea ) intentional endangerment versus negligent endangerment). Actually, in thinking about this, in the US we have a common-law tort of “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” Obviously, there is a lot to this claim, but I wonder if it would have applied here…
But of course, as someone on this site called me an annoying, know it all, dickhead, I think its best that I sign off there, as I wouldn’t want to leave that impression twice.
Overall - Well done!
The result is obviously a slap on the wrist for this tabloid and will probably be viewed as only the cost of doing business. The reletively low amount will probably only encourage theft of images from flickr and other “public” websites. I’m wondering if the result would have been different if you had reserved all copyrights or had no license on it at all. Somehow, I doubt it. Unfortunately, if they had stolen these from someone without AC’s means, they probably never would have been sued and would have gotten off scot free.
The lesson learned here: only upload low res photos to anything publically available on flickr.
Hi, just saw the coverage on the dutch tv (gossip) program “RTL Boulevard”. The guy from the gossip magazine (he sometimes co-hosts this program…) got all the time to explain that the’ve won, and he going to deliver cake to his team AND even the teams of competitor magazines. I Guess 1000 euros per picture is cheap compared to prices they pay the paparazzi. In other words: although the judge says it is illegal to do so, they are still able to do it, as long as they pay the small fee. They even don’t have to ask permission this way…. very dangerous.
adam
is he also on tv in the netherlands???
you are on shwonews now in the leader they said u lost, morrons
eric
For the child endangerment case, I had thought you wouldn’t of won.
As for the copyright infringement, alas, letting them off without punishment this time is (IMO) completely and utterly stupid. It pretty much sends the message out that you can steal photos from the web without permission if you pay a small fee.
[…] link […]
This is strange and I totally understand Adam being upset. For example, a single featuring an artists song can be handed out for free, for example for promotional purposes. However, even when they have handed out the song for free it is still protected by copyright law and whoever distributes the song without permission gets his ass sued. Therefore a picture that has been published cannot just become public property unless the copyright holder says so..
In this case, if youve got a lot of money, what you do is that you dig up a lot of dirt on the editor and get to him some other way.
Keep it up, stay strong. Best wishes from the land of elks
@Tomas: Maybe I can get CSB to follow the editor around and snap some shots on an ms mobile device. Happy to pay for that aggrevation.
Without the transcript i cannot and will not comment properly on this “kort geding”. However,the outcome on the ” endangerment” of a 15 year old is no surprise to me for obvious reasons.. there is no case.I suppose a major factor here is the fact that the perception from a parent differs a lot from an objective judge. The usage of unauthorised intellectual property was not fined.Only future copyright violations will matter. Bummer.
Adam,
Thanks for letting listeners follow the journey. Few of us understand law but I think the majority can understand why this was important. Congratulations on taking a stand.
I think that, for the most part, that ruling simply proves something we all know. The legal system, and I mean for most countries, simply doesn’t comprehend the Internet.
I think the judge probably dismissed the endagement case because the magazine was published in one country while the child lives in another. Unless very specific information was given (such as the address of the school), it would not be likely that anyone reading the magazine would be able to find the school without a lot of work and some financial effort.
However, again, I think that proves she doesn’t understand the Internet. Once that information is available online (and I would suggest sending C&D letters to anyone who publishes it online), then the psycho across town can get it. I think the judge missed that point in considering the endagerment, and I think it may be grounds for an appeal.
On the infringement charge, I personally loathe the so called “public figure” doctrine. It seems a punishment for being successful. It isn’t fair that someone is given less protection by the law than a criminal gets… because they’re famous. I don’t think it’s possible for you to get a fair hearing on this issue, simply because of your success.
Perhaps this issue itself is grounds for an appeal? Does dutch law allow for appeals based on personal bias of a judge? You won this portion of your case, but the judge turned it into a pyrrhic victory by not enacting punitive damages and by setting the fine so low. As a content creator I truly appreciate your efforts to protect your own rights and thus establish a precedent, but as a person I feel the judge has wronged you with her disposition of the case.
In Flickr, you can set your photos to “All Rights Reserved”, when I discovered someone linking to my Flickr photos on their commercial website, I changed mine away from “Creative Commons” to All Rights Reserved, which for all legal intents and purposes, forced them to stop using my photos.
Rather than slagging Adam, I think he deserves some kudos for investing his own time and money (and the time is probably more valuable than the lawyer fees) in taking this to court and establishing some precendents. I don’t always agree with Adam, but I do respect him for investing time and effort in his principles, rather than just talking about it…
Come on guys… AC did indeed set a “court precedent” with this ruling that implies that
violators will in fact be fined for CC violations. Yes it was only a “slap on the wrist” to the defendants but the ruling has value as a *preceden*t. At least to some extent. Particularly if future judges follow case law. -CT
AC: Good that the CC license held up, but considering how lightly the magazine was punished on that it seems a shame something similar was not done on the endangerment aspect.
The magazine’s actions seem very irresponsible. You may be well-known in Holland, but your daughter is a minor and her safety and privacy should be respected. A message was all that was needed. I’m not a lawyer but know from my own experiences that the law can seen very unfair in cases where the emotional argument is strong but there is nothing the courts can really use to nail the bastards.
It seems to me that the Press Complaints Commission would have ruled in your favour, had the article been published in the UK: http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html (see the Schools & Children link to feel vindicated). That would have been free and sent the intended message.
AdamC: I know that you’re not after money but after justice or so, but : a) they don’t have to pay for stolen photos in past, b) the price for using your photos in future is pathetic - 1000 euro is nothing compared to this what tabloids pay for photos of celebs …
AdamC: should I follow him with camera and you pay? You would have to pay quite a lot for me to do it - and in advance - but of course I could do it it
Generally: yes, you won the case but the verdict is very dissapointing because it is not penalizing for past deeds and is specifying very very low penalty for future sins. In your place I would escalate it to European Court of Justic and then to United Nations and then I would go to Vatican and I would give a dope to a pope and convince also him to rule in favor of yourself !
Finally a gig for CSB! Great idea. Send me your plan.
A: thats exactly what I meant… After all, imagination’s the only limit…
What really struck me is that if it would have been a website that unrightfully published pictures from a magazine, I bet you there had been damages that hurt…
Are there any images from their magazine worth pilfering for my site? Can someone translate the text for me, so I can post it on my blog and claim that its my own work? Apparently, I can just take what I want and use it for whatever purpose I feel is appropriate. Seems like the magazine now loses any standing to enforce its copyright.
Adam,
It looks like you won, but was the message clear enough to rest of those assholes waiting to steal the little man’s rights? I don’t think so. Hopefully if we keep fighting against this shit, the message will have greater impact over time.. I’m just wondering how much time we can afford to lose while the big man continues to take a shit on the little man.
By the way, if you really need a picture of Adam, check out Ebay!… (Nice hair by the way Adam!)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ADAM-CURRY-Agency-Photo-MTV-VJ_W0QQitemZ4836707401QQcategoryZ18836QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
AdamC: plan is simple: you send me a lot of money in advance and I go do paparazzi-ing on him. AdamC: please watch “Paparazzi” series on BBC3 or so… - it contains some hints how it looks like and what issues are there etc. Send me by email all data abuot him that you have. Ia m EU citizen and cannot be forbidden entry to any EU country, Netherlands including
PS. last time I was entering Netherlands by train I was quarelling with police, almost shouting at them, that they were checking my passport although Netherlands is in “schengen zone” and the principle of “schengen zone” is no passport checks. They politely (despite my shouting) told me that they are on the lookout for terrorists. Of course they had no power to block my entry to the Netherlands…
Adam,
The item about the court case in today’s epidsode of RTL Boulevard was terrible. It was single-sided, and if I didn’t know better I would have understood that you lost the case entirely!
Here was that big fat idiot: Marc van der Linden, gloating about how he won the court case and that he would buy cake for the entire company and two other competing magazine’s.
This verdict means that a magazine in the Netherlands can take every picture they like from a website and publish it. They just have to pay € 1.000,- wich is a real bargain for a picture of a celebrity.
I guess csb has a point…
Sell every image you post. This seems to be the only way to prove commercial value. Adding a pricetag and a paypal link maybe. I don’t know - this is just plain infuriating. The license to stalk is even worse.
Meh… given what this case was about, I could care less. That is, until I win the lottery to become a half-billionaire, wherefore I will become only half interested in such matters.
Leave it to the uber-rich and uber-bored to find such groundbreaking and stimulating talk on issues such as this. No thanks, I’ll stick with those issues that *really* affect my pathetic little life in middledom America.
Cheers on the quality and enthusiasm of your podcast. Piss on the trivial content.
Ok, ok, here I am. CSB, look out man. As soon as I figure out how on God’s green earth to “create audio feedback and throw it up on a server” I’ve got some choice words for you, my friend. And I ain’t fecking or facking around. You Curry-Bashers claiming “Loss! Loss!” at the top of yr electronic voices have clearly missed the point of this case.
Adam: I’m thinking the scuzzy guy who edits the rag might be played by Robert Downey Jr. in the film version of this whole ordeal (we’ll beef him up and put him on the Bridget Jones diet).
[…] Mit Interesse habe ich den Fall von Adam Curry verfolgt, der hierzulande kaum in den Medien vorkam. Und wenn natürlich hauptsächlich in den Blogs, aber die Old Media kommt sicherlich noch zu einer Bewertung der Ereignisse. Es ging unter anderem darum, dass eine Zeitschrift Bilder von Adams Flickr-Account abgedruckt hat, die ausdrücklich unter einer CC-Lizenz standen. Keine kommerzielle Verwertung also. Lizenz ist Lizenz, dachte man ja bisher, aber die holländische Gerichtsbarkeit sieht das offenbar doch ein klein wenig anders: Die Bilder dürfen von diesem besagtem Magazin nicht mehr - nicht mehr! - abgedruckt werden ansonsten müssten sie Adam entlohnen. Insofern ist die CC-Lizenz momentan zumindest in Holland gerichtsgeprüft - faktisch ist sie dort aber wertlos. Denn schließlich, so muss man das sehen, hat das Magazin ja die Bilder schon einmal abgedruckt und gerade das sollte die CC-Lizenz eigentlich verhindern - es sollte klar sein, dass mit dieser Lizenz versehene Inhalte nicht kommerziell verwendet werden dürfen es sei denn man fragt den Rechteinhaber. Es dürfte interessant sein jetzt die Stellungen von der CC-Organisation oder der EFF zu hören. Interessant wäre es natürlich auch zu sehen ob die traditionellen Medien noch darüber berichten werden. […]
I’m no lawyer, but I think to stalk the editor, he’d have to first be a celebrity? I don’t think he has the hair for it. I know a bald head is the only thing holding me back
[…] Just noticed that the Creative Commons had a CC Salon in San Francisco last night. When I read the blogpost, at first I thought it next Wednesday. My head’s been deep in code this week, not sure it’s out yet . I wonder if they talked about Adam’s case. […]
Real mixed message there on the creative commons side of things, but a win is a win. As for the endangerment side, that sucks. I hate it when people pick on kids and get away with it.
If you ever need to “take things into your own hands” with the stalkers, just steer things down here to Littlehampton, I got your back. I have always wanted to smack around a paparazzi stalker, or as Kevin Feder-freakin-idiot calls them pavorattis. I am not popular enough to have my own stalkers, so smacking yours around would be theraputic.
Why don’t you just send an invoice to the magazine now (with a sum that is usually paid bny magazines for photos like that) like every other photographer would do whose photo was used without asking? They’d have to pay at least that (it won’t be that much, though).
Is there a Court of Appeal in the Netherlands like there is in England?
As many people have stated, now there is a price for your photos, perhaps a superior judge will realise this.
Here in the UK we can’t even advertise youth groups to tell young people they exist in case some undesirables start hanging around knowing where there are young children.
There needs to be some consistancy applied.
Sorry to hear about the verdict Adam. I understand your concerns as a caring father, shame the courts don’t.
Andy
[…] Leider ist die Creative Commons-Lizenz nichts wert, wie ein Gerichtsverfahren von Adam Curry gegen ein niederländisches Magazin gezeigt hat. Dieses Magazin hat private Bilder von Flickr genommen und im Magazin abgedruckt. Die Bilder waren mit der Creative Commons-Lizenz versehen, die besagt, dass diese Bilder nicht für den kommerziellen Gebrauch freigegeben sind. […]
Hi Adam,
this means, CC is dead. Everybody has one shot without punishment and pays 1000€ afterwards. Now everybody is really frightened, are they?
This, together with peered Internet, paid spam - is a nightmare!
http://www.thomasweller.de/2006/03/10/creative-commons-ist-tot
Keep up the great work!
Thomas
Am i from another planet? Facts and fiction are mixed in the blogosphere. AC lost left-right-centre !
Strange how CSB turns around just like that. Follow the money…
Fact of the matter is that a “kort geding” is a shortened procedure in which only one judge makes a verdict on sort of urgent items .The only logical step is to take this to a “bodem procedure”which is a normal time- and money consuming lawsuit.
sorry, it’s the tiered Internet - bugger me
ugh.
AC - take the money you get from them and donate it to Unicef (they are going to pay up, aren’t they?) The money might be enough to buy a toilet somewhere in a desolate jungle.
It seems unfortunate that most people on this weblog can’t read Dutch. Because after reading the verdict noone can honestly say that Adam has won. They only thing that the judge granted him is that he is the copyright-owner.Adam lost eight of nine accounts, so to call that a partially won case is a bit strange…..
pip: what the fuck you mean by “CSB turns around just like that”? I don’t agree with AdamC that he should sue poor journalists but on the other hand if I get paid (in money or other things - AdamC knows what) then I am willing to do this or that for AdamC! Example: I don’t like Yahoo because it is evil corporation that already helped to jail 2 journalists in China, but I like to use http://podcasts.yahoo.com because podcast fucking alley is a scam. So what your problem pip? Do you need to bash me to feel good about yourself?
Adam, spell my name correct! Please!
On the audio comment you stated; “i am not your whore ac” there you go. A few days later on this site You sell your soul to AC ‘For a reasonable amount of money i will go after Marc Verlinden’. This makes you a prostitute.
I don’t have any problems with you CSB,this must be clear to you by now,i am just kidding around just like you.
Correction :Marc van der linden.
At your service CSB.
the judge made a huge mistake here. how about this scenario: this “magazine” (or non-perforated toilet paper as I prefer to call these rags) publishes some “news worthy” photos (yeah, bit of a stretch but bear with me). I think they’re great, scan them and publish them on my website and charge people to download them. You think I’d get a slap on the wrist, HELL NO!!! What this case means is that corporations are more important than the individual citizen.
On the endangerment piece, the judge should be ashamed of herself. Following a minor and publishing details of her movements is OK as long as nothing happens to her? what a joke. on that basis downloading naked pictures of children should be ok. appalling
adam - any chance of appeal in the Dutch system?
What about hoger beroep? They’ll probably just say the same thing. This is really getting out a hand. In the US, they pay thousands of dollars for, say 300 songs, while we europeans, a 1000 euros per picture, that is sooo not fair. I thought the euro was stronger than the dollar, this all makes no economic sense
BTW, adam, are you needing any spying equipment? I might have some (jk) or know some people…
pip: I said “I am not your whore” but it doesn’t mean the same as “I will not be your whore” - for money or for the other thing that AdamC knows - I can be his whore - but I am not his whore now. There is a difference between not-whore and who can be a whore and a real whore who already was paid and performed at least once his/her services…
You make me Whore-loop.
Please consider what you’re posting?
What does that suppose to mean?
You win some, you lose some…
Dubieus. Een roddelblad publiceert waar de dochter van een vermogend echtpaar naar school gaat en hoe ze daar naartoe vervoerd wordt - informatie die voor gewone lezers interessant noch relevant is, voor kwaadwillenden echter des te meer - en komt daar…
Populisme Gert jan, zo denkt Curry echt dat hij het middelpunt van de wereld is terwijl de realiteit is dat hij slechts de enige is die daarvan overtuigd is.
Het gaat niet over AC, Pip. Het gaat over juridische beginselen, over wat beschermenswaardig is en wat niet. Natuurlijk heeft de rechter gelijk als ze stelt dat de foto’s vakantiekiekjes zijn, en dus weinig waardevol. Het punt is: dat had Weekend mogen aanvoeren in de onderhandelingen VOORAF over de publicatieprijs van de foto’s. Je weet wel: “mogen we jouw foto’s in ons blad publiceren en zo ja, wat kost dat? WAAAT? Voor een vakantiekiekje?” Dat hebben ze niet gedaan: ze hebben ze gejat. Stel je voor dat jouw fiets gejat wordt, je weet wie het heeft gedaan, je daagt ‘m voor de rechter en de rechter zegt: “Foei, dat mag je niet weer doen. Doe je het wel, dan moet je 500 euro boete betalen.” Is dat gerechtigheid? De dief zal de volgende keer de afweging maken: koop ik een fiets, dan kost me dat 500 euro, jat ik ‘m dan loop ik het risico op een boete van 500 euro, maar de fiets mag ik houden (immers, de foto’s zijn al gepubliceerd en de oplage blijft gewoon geld opbrengen in het leesmapcircuit). Het duidelijkste bewijs is de reactie van Weekend op de uitspraak: “Curry had ons aanbod moeten accepteren” Let wel: het zijn gewoon ordinaire dieven! De rechter vergaloppeert zich hier, wellicht op het verkeerde been gezet door de eis van Adam.
Hoe dan ook, het is goed dat de CC-licentie nu backing heeft van het ‘real world’ rechtssysteem. Als een krant artikelen van m’n log jat en publiceert, weet ik nu dat de CC-licentie geen Jip en Janneke recht is, maar stand houdt in de rechtzaal. Jammer dat de boete in dit geval zo laag is, daar zal nog wel andere jurisprudentie over komen. Dat is van groot belang: het hele concept van we-media, collaborative publishing, weblogs, podcasting - het staat of valt bij respect voor andermans wensen over (her)gebruik van user generated content. De CC-licentie is gemaakt om (her)gebruik binnen de wensen van de maker mogelijk te maken. Als dat juridisch niet goed dicht te timmeren is, vallen we straks weer terug op de bestaande juridische structuren voor het beschermen van auteursrechten in de oude media. Copyrights, kopieerbeveiliging, inperken van rechten, inperken van gebruikersvrijheid, DRM… Steeds strengere beveiligingen, steeds meer beperkingen, steeds inventievere ‘hacks’, steeds complexere workarounds om je gekochte CD toch op je mp3-speler te kunnen zetten… De enige weg uit die negatieve techniekspiraal is een concept, gebaseerd op vertrouwen en dingen bewust wél toestaan. Dat is Creative Commons, en daarom is deze rechtzaak zo belangrijk.
hearing things like this almost makes me lose hope in the human race. i mean what planet is this judge from? where in the fuck is it ever ok to go after someones kid because this person is famous and he should expect it. this is just bullshit and if i was you adam i really wouldn’t take that i would stick it to this so called “judge” i mean who does she/he think she/he is? and as for your photos you are posting them online and i know they are copyrighted but in the age where technology and information is just everywhere it is expected that some asshole is going to take your shit.
Appels en peren. Ïk schreef alleen iets in reactie op jouw insinuatie dat zijn dochter in gevaar zou zijn door kidnapping of wat dan ook. Als ik iets in die sfeer zou willen uithalen,dan had ik dat wel gedaan in Belgie,daar was plenty mogelijkheid.Ga je daarnaast ook nog in NOVA je ego uitvergroten-lees je eigen gevaarzetting verhogen- dan schreew je om aandacht van welke soort dan ook.
Mijn grote bezwaar is de nogal Poeha factor die in de Podcasts naar voren kwam. Als je A zegt,moet je ook B zeggen,daarmee zeggend dat als je in Kort geding te horen krijgt dat je niet kon overtuigen schade te hebben geleden, je dat moet voortzetten in een bodemprocedure.
Zoals de situatie nu is blijft er een zweem van overwinning hangen bij de Paparazzi.Ik zou daar geen vrede mee hebben als het mij zou overkomen,ik zou me gevogeld voelen.
PS. Creative Commons is een door een Amerikaan bedachte formule die Niet,ik herhaal niet,de Nederlandse intellectuele eigendomsaanspraken vervangt,maar slechts een alternatief geeft.Je kunt eenvoudig je naam inscannen en het probleem is opgelost.
Feit is dat het Weekend is verboden om in de toekomst de foto’s NOGMAALS te gebruiken,ergo nu mocht het kennelijk dus wel volgens deze rechter. Hoezo CC houdt stand? neen dus,geen terughaling leesmappen. Natuurlijk zat deze rechter fout. Zelfs de gelouterde Advocaten van Weekend zagen dat al aankomen doorA. van tevoren al een rectificatie te plaatsen,en B.een schadevergoeding aan te bieden.Ik ben met je eens dat de licentie CC nu op de juridische landkaart staat maar om nu Hosanna te gaan roepen zoals in de lijstjes van even verderop gaat me veel te ver. Ik vrees dat het daar voorlopig even bij blijft tot de volgende zaak zich aandient. Ik ben in ieder geval een beetje teleurgesteld in AC,ik had gedacht dat het om een principekwestie ging,het kost echt geen Godsvermogen. Jammer gemiste kans.
[…] ����������� �� ������ […]
[…] On March 9, 2006 the District Court of Amsterdam, judging in summary proceedings, decided the first court case in the Netherlands involving the validity of a Creative Commons license. Local media celebrity Adam Curry (see http://curry.podshow.com/?p=49) had published photo’s of his family on www.flickr.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license. The photos also carried the notice ‘This photo is public’. The Dutch weekly Weekend, a gossip magazine, had reproduced four photos in a story on Curry’s children without seeking Curry’s prior permission. […]
Adam, re: the copyright thing. Did your lawyer not warn you before hand that this was a likely outcome? From what I have read about similar cases, the verdict is pretty much par for the course.
What surprises me even is that the judge ruled this an infringement of your copyrights. We may not have fair use in the Netherlands. but we do have exceptions to copyright. If the magazine had argued that they were using the photos in a polemic of these works, they should have won all out. All the magazine then had to do, according to the law, is mention you as the maker. (IANAL)
Oh, BTW, there was a company (from Germany, IIRC) that offered the sort of stalking services you propose some ten to twenty years ago. The papers asked the justice department whether this was legal, and as far as the department was concerned, they could not see anything wrong with. A guy with a sandwhich board would follow the “victim” around town, and the sandwhich board would have a text proclaiming the shameful thing the “victim” had done.
With some creative wording you should be able to stay clear of any libel charges. For instance, “The man in front of me stalks little girls, and takes pictures of them for money.”
[…] Prof. Bernt Hugenholtz, by way of Creative Commons Canada’s weblog, provides a translation of key portions of the Dutch trial court’s decision in Curry’s favor on the Creative Commons question. If you’re interested in efforts such as Creative Commons, it’s a must-read. Pamela Jones blogs the story at Groklaw, and Adam Curry blogs the story at Curry.com. Trackback URL: http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/03/16/cc-see/trackback/ […]
[…] http://curry.podshow.com/?p=49 […]