On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Maarten Dammers <maar...@mdammers.nl> wrote: > Sage Ross schreef: >> 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. >> > You might want to read > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions >
I know this is our standard procedure, to ignore most typical non-copyright restrictions that involve contracts rather than laws. But this seems different from typical cases we deal with (and different from any of the examples on that page). It seems like an intermediate case between ignoring a no photos sign or agreeing to a no photos contract, on the one hand, and contract like what Burning Man uses (which actually does prevent us from using photos of that event by people who signed it: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa ). I *think* the IOC terms and conditions are irrelevant to whether someone can use free licenses if they want to, but the waters seem muddier than in the cases I'm familiar with. -Sage _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
