On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Jon Davis <w...@konsoletek.com> wrote: > "Does the contract (private use only for photos) implicitly agreed to by > Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA > license" -- In my recollection, the answer is no. It is similar to someone > taking a picture where it says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY". They might be breaking > someones rules, and could risk getting thrown out, but the picture is still > theirs to keep. The IOC could sue the photographer for breach of contract > (which would be hilarious to watch the PR beating they get for that), but > once again, that doesn't effect us. In short, contracts can be broken, laws > can't.
Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a contract. I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the copyright to his photos. But agreeing to terms and conditions is different from walking past a "no photos" sign. Contracts can be broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts. > And not that I need to remind this crew, but the CC license is > non-revocable, so the IOC is too late. The photographer licensed his image > under CC, and that is the end of it. You can change the license back on > Flickr, but that doesn't mean it isn't still legally available under CC. > That is the _entire_ reason we have the Flickr Reviewer bot. > The IOC's argument, I imagine, would not be that the CC license should be revoked, but that it was never valid in the first place since, by agreeing to a prior contract, Giles had given up the right to enter into certain other kinds of contracts for the photos he took. I don't think that's right, but it seems more complicated than typical cases of against-the-rules photography and attempts to revoke licenses. -Sage _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
