I have tried to keep a minimal blogosphere/Twitter presence, but I just couldn’t resist writing about this topic. My friend Duane has a day job which is NOT being a photographer, although he does some fantastic photography work. Thus, when Duane has to police the internet to find whether someone is lifting his photos AND violating his Creative Commons license he expends time, money and it is in general, an overall headache.

Given that I can’t ask these questions to my Dad (who would be my go-to guy, normally), and armed with my own understanding of intellectual property law (having taken these courses during my Masters degree), I went to examine the recent case where one of Duane’s photos was lifted, apparently violating the Creative Commons License.

The first thing I did was read the Creative Commons that Duane has on this particular photo. I couldn’t find it off the website of the realtor, because there is no link back to Duane’s Flickr photo stream (the first red flag - no clear attribution).

The second thing I did was to read the realtor’s website upside down. As it turns out, the footer of one of his images says “All images (c) — the realtor’s name —”. Well, sorry to disappoint, but the photo above that exact footer is the property of whomever took it. From what I read on the site, the site owner did not take the photo, so, how can he claim copyright over an image that isn’t his?

The third issue is that for the Vancouver photo of the month promotional, this realtor’s site is using one of Duane’s images WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION. And the fourth issue is that of Duane being the copyright holder. Since the earlier footer implies that ALL images are (c) — the realtor’s name —, by association, this would imply that the photo of Vancouver at night (which you can find here on Duane’s Flickr stream) is also copyrighted by the site owner. Which it can’t because, well, Duane is the owner of that photo!

So what are the implications? First of all, I checked Duane’s CC license on that particular photo. The license is “Attribution-Non-Commercial-Non Derivative“. This means that (a) it should be attributed to Duane Storey (attribution that I can’t find for the life of me on the site that lifted this photo). That also means that no derivative can be done. Therefore, the site is violating the CC license because the composite photo IS a derivative of Duane’s original work.

Why is this a big deal? Well, for starters, because it’s one of those gray areas where people seem to just be entitled to use Creative-Commons licensed photos in whatever shape or form they want. Secondly, it makes (at least me) worried about whether I should even license my photos on Flickr. One of the reasons why I opened some of my own personal photos to licensing is precisely that I expect attribution!

I look forward to hearing from Duane how this issue was resolved. I can understand why Duane is upset, and I hope that this can be resolved quickly. Particularly since this seems to be a worrisome trend as of late!

Related posts:

1. Quick Flickr and Creative Commons rant
2. Third Tuesday Liveblog – Jeff Young on intellectual property and Web 2.0
3. Guest post: Sharing content online and the Creative Commons License by Steve Anderson

What is the Canadian Coalition of Electronic Rights? From their website:

How can a balance be attained between protecting the rights of creators and their entitlement to compensation for their works and the rights of Canadians who seek to access and use these works? Although there may be no definitive answer to this question there are several factors that need to exist in an amended Copyright Act to ensure a reasonable level of mutual protection for stakeholders and users. The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights (CCER) is an advocate for the preservation of user rights throughout the copyright reform process in Canada.
[CCER website]

I had covered the Bill C-61 discussions in a recent post, but it seemed to stir NO DISCUSSION whatsoever (with the exception of Gillian’s very good commentary). This morning I woke up to a Tweet by Andy and I figured I had to write a post about it, and try to bring more attention to it. The reality of it is, this Bill WILL affect a lot of Canadians, residents, even short-term visitors! I don’t think that people are informed enough about this issue. Thus I hope this can be a wake-up call to action. This is a relevant topic that has direct relevance to what Joe Solomon spoke about yesterday – mobilizing people to effect social change.

If you feel compelled to do so, I would urge you to read more about the CCER and the Bill C-61, and to send this letter. And as usual, the disclaimer – I am in no way associated with CCER, but I do think that the discussion should be balanced. Furthermore, I like the research and thinking of Dr. Michael Geist, who has strongly criticized the bill in its current form.

[Hat tips to Andy for his tweet, and hoping this post will attract some attention!]

Related posts:

1. Online dating… the discussion continues
2. Outrageous: Canada’s Copyright Bill C-61 lack of public consultation
3. Tazzu community and Bill C-61 – voice your concerns!