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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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) < > [email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
