Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Case Law

2017-08-09T15:10:12Z

CCID-lquilter: /* Cases */ description of drauglis

There is a [[:Category:Case_Law|a listing of court decisions]] that discuss or are directly relevant to Creative Commons licenses. The decisions can come from any jurisdiction around the world. It is a list of decisions, not cases.

== Cases ==
{|

|-
| [[09-1684-A_(Lichôdmapwa_v._L'asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa)]]
| Belgium 2010/10/28
|

|-
| [[Äventyrsgruvan i Tuna Hästberg v. Gunnarsson]]
| Sweden 2016-02-25
|
|-
| [[Chang v. Virgin Mobile]]
| US (N.D. Tex.) 2009/01/16
|

|-
| [[Curry v. Audax]]
| Netherlands 2006/03/09
|

|-
| [[Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC]]
| US (D.C. D.C.) 2015/08/18
| Atlas company's inclusion of a CC-BY-SA 2.0 photograph on the cover of an atlas did not violate the CC license. The atlas was a '''compilation''' not a derivative work, so did not need to be licensed under the SA term, and attribution on back cover was appropriate under the BY term.

|-
| [[Gerlach vs. DVU]]
| Germany 2010/10/08
|

|-
| [[Internet Brands v. Holliday]]
| US (C.D. Cal. 2012/11/19)
| Litigation involving ownership of wiki material contributed by a broad community and licensed under CC BY-SA. At no point in either case was the validity of the CC license contested.

|-
| [[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]
| US (Fed. Cir.) 2010/02/22
|

|-
| [[No. 71036 N. v. Newspaper]]
| Israel 2011/09/27
| Photographer who used BY-SA licenses on his photographs had some photographs used in a Newspaper. The newspaper did not provide proper attribution. The newspaper had also used Wikipedia text without proper attribution.

|-
| [[SGAE v. Fernandez]]
| Spain 2006/02/17
|

|-
| [[SGAE v. Luis]]
| Spain 2005/11/29
|

|-
| [[Spirit]]
| Germany 2016/11/18
| German court required removal of hyperlink to CC-licensed image used in violation of license terms. ''Note: the parties names are redacted in the published decision. The case number is ref. 310 O 402/16.''

|-
| [[TA 3560/09, 3561/09, Avi Re'uveni v. Mapa inc. ישראל: לראשונה, ביהמ"ש אכף רישיון קריאייטיב קומונס]]
| Israel
|

|}
To add a new court decision to [[:Category:Case_Law|the list]], create a new page here on the wiki and add a copy of [[Template:Case_Law|the Case Law template]] and edit it to contain details of the case. Then add a link to the case to the list above.

If you are unfamiliar with creating pages, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page instructions are available] There are also [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates comprehensive guides] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates quick start instructions] for working with wiki templates. If you are unfamiliar with creating Wiki tables, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables instructions are available for this as well].

For cases taking place across multiple courts, add separate pages for each decision.

Case Law

2017-08-09T15:07:08Z

CCID-lquilter: /* Cases */ court info

There is a [[:Category:Case_Law|a listing of court decisions]] that discuss or are directly relevant to Creative Commons licenses. The decisions can come from any jurisdiction around the world. It is a list of decisions, not cases.

== Cases ==
{|

|-
| [[09-1684-A_(Lichôdmapwa_v._L'asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa)]]
| Belgium 2010/10/28
|

|-
| [[Äventyrsgruvan i Tuna Hästberg v. Gunnarsson]]
| Sweden 2016-02-25
|
|-
| [[Chang v. Virgin Mobile]]
| US (N.D. Tex.) 2009/01/16
|

|-
| [[Curry v. Audax]]
| Netherlands 2006/03/09
|

|-
| [[Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC]]
| US (D.C. D.C.) 2015/08/18
|

|-
| [[Gerlach vs. DVU]]
| Germany 2010/10/08
|

|-
| [[Internet Brands v. Holliday]]
| US (C.D. Cal. 2012/11/19)
| Litigation involving ownership of wiki material contributed by a broad community and licensed under CC BY-SA. At no point in either case was the validity of the CC license contested.

|-
| [[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]
| US (Fed. Cir.) 2010/02/22
|

|-
| [[No. 71036 N. v. Newspaper]]
| Israel 2011/09/27
| Photographer who used BY-SA licenses on his photographs had some photographs used in a Newspaper. The newspaper did not provide proper attribution. The newspaper had also used Wikipedia text without proper attribution.

|-
| [[SGAE v. Fernandez]]
| Spain 2006/02/17
|

|-
| [[SGAE v. Luis]]
| Spain 2005/11/29
|

|-
| [[Spirit]]
| Germany 2016/11/18
| German court required removal of hyperlink to CC-licensed image used in violation of license terms. ''Note: the parties names are redacted in the published decision. The case number is ref. 310 O 402/16.''

|-
| [[TA 3560/09, 3561/09, Avi Re'uveni v. Mapa inc. ישראל: לראשונה, ביהמ"ש אכף רישיון קריאייטיב קומונס]]
| Israel
|

|}
To add a new court decision to [[:Category:Case_Law|the list]], create a new page here on the wiki and add a copy of [[Template:Case_Law|the Case Law template]] and edit it to contain details of the case. Then add a link to the case to the list above.

If you are unfamiliar with creating pages, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page instructions are available] There are also [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates comprehensive guides] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates quick start instructions] for working with wiki templates. If you are unfamiliar with creating Wiki tables, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables instructions are available for this as well].

For cases taking place across multiple courts, add separate pages for each decision.

Internet Brands v. Holliday

2017-08-09T15:04:54Z

CCID-lquilter: copy edit to put litigation status clearly with the associated case.

{{Case Law
|title=Internet Brands v. Holliday et al.
|region=U.S.
|court=U.S. District Court of the Central District of California
|description=Litigation involving ownership of wiki material contributed by a broad community and licensed under CC BY-SA. At no point in either case was the validity of the CC license contested.
|summary='''The original lawsuit:''' (Internet Brands v. Holliday et. al.)

Wikitravel is a community-based wiki run by a for-profit entity, Internet Brands. In 2012, some members of the Wikitravel community joined forces with those engaged in Wikivoyage (a project started by former Wikitravel editors) to approach the Wikimedia Foundation about hosting a new travel wiki. After undergoing its standard process for community debate and input, Wikimedia ultimately decided to move forward with the project.

In the meantime, Internet Brands brought [http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf suit] against two Wikitravel editors who were also members of the Wikimedia community, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy to take away Wikitravel's web traffic.

''Result:''

After Internet Brands agreed to dismiss their unfair competition claim, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the remainder of the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

'''The associated lawsuit:''' (Wikimedia Foundation v. Internet Brands)

In response to Internet Brands' lawsuit against members of its community, Wikimedia filed its own [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf complaint] against Internet Brands in California state court, alleging that the purpose of the lawsuit filed by Internet Brands was solely to intimidate Wikitravel editors from leaving Wikitravel. Among other things, Wikimedia asked for declaratory judgment that Internet Brands does not have ownership in the Wikitravel content or the right to restrict the use of the Wikitravel content in any way other than as required by the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons BY-SA license, under which all of the Wikitravel content is licensed.

Still pending. In December 2012, the Court [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-11-19_D18_Order_re_Special_Mtn_to_Strike_and_Mtn_to_Dismiss.pdf overruled] the demurrer (i.e. motion to dismiss) filed by Internet Brands.

}}

[[Category:USA]]

Case Law

2017-08-09T14:50:25Z

CCID-lquilter: /* Cases */ added column for jdx / date

There is a [[:Category:Case_Law|a listing of court decisions]] that discuss or are directly relevant to Creative Commons licenses. The decisions can come from any jurisdiction around the world. It is a list of decisions, not cases.

== Cases ==
{|

|-
| [[09-1684-A_(Lichôdmapwa_v._L'asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa)]]
| Belgium 2010/10/28
|

|-
| [[Äventyrsgruvan i Tuna Hästberg v. Gunnarsson]]
| Sweden 2016-02-25
|
|-
| [[Chang v. Virgin Mobile]]
| US (N.D. Tex.) 2009/01/16
|

|-
| [[Curry v. Audax]]
| Netherlands 2006/03/09
|

|-
| [[Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC]]
| US (D.C. D.C.) 2015/08/18
|

|-
| [[Gerlach vs. DVU]]
| Germany 2010/10/08
|

|-
| [[Internet Brands v. Holliday]]
|
| Litigation involving ownership of wiki material contributed by a broad community and licensed under CC BY-SA. At no point in either case was the validity of the CC license contested.

|-
| [[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]
| US (Fed. Cir.) 2010/02/22
|

|-
| [[No. 71036 N. v. Newspaper]]
| Israel 2011/09/27
| Photographer who used BY-SA licenses on his photographs had some photographs used in a Newspaper. The newspaper did not provide proper attribution. The newspaper had also used Wikipedia text without proper attribution.

|-
| [[SGAE v. Fernandez]]
| Spain 2006/02/17
|

|-
| [[SGAE v. Luis]]
| Spain 2005/11/29
|

|-
| [[Spirit]]
| Germany 2016/11/18
| German court required removal of hyperlink to CC-licensed image used in violation of license terms. ''Note: the parties names are redacted in the published decision. The case number is ref. 310 O 402/16.''

|-
| [[TA 3560/09, 3561/09, Avi Re'uveni v. Mapa inc. ישראל: לראשונה, ביהמ"ש אכף רישיון קריאייטיב קומונס]]
| Israel
|

|}
To add a new court decision to [[:Category:Case_Law|the list]], create a new page here on the wiki and add a copy of [[Template:Case_Law|the Case Law template]] and edit it to contain details of the case. Then add a link to the case to the list above.

If you are unfamiliar with creating pages, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page instructions are available] There are also [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates comprehensive guides] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates quick start instructions] for working with wiki templates. If you are unfamiliar with creating Wiki tables, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables instructions are available for this as well].

For cases taking place across multiple courts, add separate pages for each decision.

Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC

2017-08-08T20:13:25Z

CCID-lquilter: formatting

{{Case Law
|title=Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC
|region=United States
|courtname=D.C. District Court
|date=2015/08/18
|description=D.C. District Court
|summary=

; BACKGROUND

Art Drauglis, photographer, had posted his works on Flickr, including "Swain's Lock", posted on April 27, 2008 under a BY-SA 2.0 license.

Kappa Map published (2012) an atlas using one of Drauglis' photographs for the cover.

Drauglis sued (Case 1:14-cv-01043-ABJ filed June 19, 2014), claiming
: (1) that the CC license was violated, and thus the atlas use infringed copyright, and
: (2) a 17 USC 1202 "copyright management information" claim, which did not rely on the CC license.

Drauglis argued the CC license was violated in several ways.
: (1) The use of his photograph as a cover of an atlas constituted a "derivative work" which therefore would have had to have been shared under a CC-BY-SA license to be compliant. (CC license Section 4(b))
: (2) Inadequate information about the CC license in the text of the atlas. (CC license Section 4(a))
: (3) Attribution term was not met because attribution was not appropriate. (CC license Section 4(c)

; RESULT

The court found against Drauglis on both counts.

COLLECTIVE WORK, NOT DERIVATIVE WORK

The use of the photograph on the cover did not constitute a "derivative work". Because the atlas was published "in its entirety in unmodified form" it was a "collective work" rather than a "derivative work", which is "a work based upon the Work" such as a "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted...."

Drauglis also alleged that the photograph had been cropped for the cover, constituting a derivative work. However, this allegation appeared only on reply (not in complaint or summary judgment motion) and Drauglis provided no evidentiary support. Moreover, any cropping appeared to be so minor and insignificant that it would not constitute a derivative work.

"CC BY-SA 2.0" SUFFICIENT FOR URI REQUIREMENT

Drauglis had argued that Section 4(a) of the CC license required a link to the License or the text of the License. The Court deemed that a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), the term used in the CC license, did not require inclusion of a URL link; either a URL or the Uniform Resource ''NAME'' (URN) was sufficient to meet the terms of the license. Kappa had included "CC BY-SA 2.0", and that was the proper URN, thus satisfying Section 4(a) of the CC license.

ATTRIBUTION AND SUFFICIENT CREDIT
Drauglis had argued that credit on the back cover, when his image was published on the front cover, was insufficient to meet the attribution requirement. Other copyright information was included on the inside front cover, and a separate copyright statement was included on the bottom of each page with a map. The court held that the cover image was more akin to a map than to the book as a whole, so compared the credit given to Drauglis' photo (back cover, small 7-8 point type) to the credits given to the maps (bottom of each page, type size unidentified in the opinion) rather than to the credit given to the book as a whole (first page, "at least" 10 point type).

; TAKE AWAY(S)

Decision: The decision was an interpretation of the Creative Commons license, a case of first impression in the D.C. Circuit.

Court cited to ''[[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]'', 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Use of a whole work is suggestive of a "compilation" rather than a derivative work subject to the ND/SA terms.

Minor cropping does not constitute a derivative work subject to the ND/SA terms.

Conventional crediting of a cover photograph separate from crediting for the work as a whole is not considered "confusing" in the context of CMI (1202 copyright management information).

}}

Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC

2017-08-08T20:10:40Z

CCID-lquilter: date

{{Case Law
|title=Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC
|region=United States
|courtname=D.C. District Court
|date=2015/08/18
|description=D.C. District Court
|summary='''BACKGROUND'''

Art Drauglis, photographer, had posted his works on Flickr, including "Swain's Lock", posted on April 27, 2008 under a BY-SA 2.0 license.

Kappa Map published (2012) an atlas using one of Drauglis' photographs for the cover. Drauglis sued (Case 1:14-cv-01043-ABJ filed June 19, 2014), claiming
: (1) that the CC license was violated, and thus the atlas use infringed copyright, and
: (2) a 17 USC 1202 "copyright management information" claim, which did not rely on the CC license.

Drauglis argued the CC license was violated in several ways.
: (1) The use of his photograph as a cover of an atlas constituted a "derivative work" which therefore would have had to have been shared under a CC-BY-SA license to be compliant. (CC license Section 4(b))
: (2) Inadequate information about the CC license in the text of the atlas. (CC license Section 4(a))
: (3) Attribution term was not met because attribution was not appropriate. (CC license Section 4(c)

'''RESULT'''

The court found against Drauglis on both counts.

COLLECTIVE WORK, NOT DERIVATIVE WORK

The use of the photograph on the cover did not constitute a "derivative work". Because the atlas was published "in its entirety in unmodified form" it was a "collective work" rather than a "derivative work", which is "a work based upon the Work" such as a "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted...."

Drauglis also alleged that the photograph had been cropped for the cover, constituting a derivative work. However, this allegation appeared only on reply (not in complaint or summary judgment motion) and Drauglis provided no evidentiary support. Moreover, any cropping appeared to be so minor and insignificant that it would not constitute a derivative work.

"CC BY-SA 2.0" SUFFICIENT FOR URI REQUIREMENT

Drauglis had argued that Section 4(a) of the CC license required a link to the License or the text of the License. The Court deemed that a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), the term used in the CC license, did not require inclusion of a URL link; either a URL or the Uniform Resource ''NAME'' (URN) was sufficient to meet the terms of the license. Kappa had included "CC BY-SA 2.0", and that was the proper URN, thus satisfying Section 4(a) of the CC license.

ATTRIBUTION AND SUFFICIENT CREDIT
Drauglis had argued that credit on the back cover, when his image was published on the front cover, was insufficient to meet the attribution requirement. Other copyright information was included on the inside front cover, and a separate copyright statement was included on the bottom of each page with a map. The court held that the cover image was more akin to a map than to the book as a whole, so compared the credit given to Drauglis' photo (back cover, small 7-8 point type) to the credits given to the maps (bottom of each page, type size unidentified in the opinion) rather than to the credit given to the book as a whole (first page, "at least" 10 point type).

'''TAKE AWAY'''

Decision: The decision was an interpretation of the Creative Commons license, a case of first impression in the D.C. Circuit.

Court cited to ''[[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]'', 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Use of a whole work is suggestive of a "compilation" rather than a derivative work subject to the ND/SA terms.

Minor cropping does not constitute a derivative work subject to the ND/SA terms.

Conventional crediting of a cover photograph separate from crediting for the work as a whole is not considered "confusing" in the context of CMI (1202 copyright management information).

}}

Case Law

2017-08-08T19:59:38Z

CCID-lquilter: drauglis

There is a [[:Category:Case_Law|a listing of court decisions]] that discuss or are directly relevant to Creative Commons licenses. The decisions can come from any jurisdiction around the world. It is a list of decisions, not cases.

== Cases ==
{|

|-
| [[09-1684-A_(Lichôdmapwa_v._L'asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa)]]
|

|-
| [[Äventyrsgruvan i Tuna Hästberg v. Gunnarsson]]
|
|-
| [[Chang v. Virgin Mobile]]
|

|-
| [[Curry v. Audax]]
|

|-
| [[Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC]]
|

|-
| [[Gerlach vs. DVU]]
|

|-
| [[Internet Brands v. Holliday]]
| Litigation involving ownership of wiki material contributed by a broad community and licensed under CC BY-SA. At no point in either case was the validity of the CC license contested.

|-
| [[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]
|

|-
| [[No. 71036 N. v. Newspaper]]
| Photographer who used BY-SA licenses on his photographs had some photographs used in a Newspaper. The newspaper did not provide proper attribution. The newspaper had also used Wikipedia text without proper attribution.

|-
| [[SGAE v. Fernandez]]
|

|-
| [[SGAE v. Luis]]
|

|-
| [[Spirit]]
| German court required removal of hyperlink to CC-licensed image used in violation of license terms. ''Note: the parties names are redacted in the published decision. The case number is ref. 310 O 402/16.''

|-
| [[TA 3560/09, 3561/09, Avi Re'uveni v. Mapa inc. ישראל: לראשונה, ביהמ"ש אכף רישיון קריאייטיב קומונס]]
|

|}
To add a new court decision to [[:Category:Case_Law|the list]], create a new page here on the wiki and add a copy of [[Template:Case_Law|the Case Law template]] and edit it to contain details of the case. Then add a link to the case to the list above.

If you are unfamiliar with creating pages, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page instructions are available] There are also [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates comprehensive guides] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates quick start instructions] for working with wiki templates. If you are unfamiliar with creating Wiki tables, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables instructions are available for this as well].

For cases taking place across multiple courts, add separate pages for each decision.

Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC

2017-08-08T19:41:57Z

CCID-lquilter: page for drauglis

{{Case Law
|title=Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC
|region=United States
|courtname=D.C. District Court
|date=2015/08/18
|description=D.C. District Court
|summary='''BACKGROUND'''

Art Drauglis, photographer, had posted his works on Flickr, including "Swain's Lock", posted on April 27, 2008 under a BY-SA 2.0 license.

Kappa Map published (2012) an atlas using one of Drauglis' photographs for the cover. Drauglis sued (Case 1:14-cv-01043-ABJ filed _____), claiming
: (1) that the CC license was violated, and thus the atlas use infringed copyright, and
: (2) a 17 USC 1202 "copyright management information" claim, which did not rely on the CC license.

Drauglis argued the CC license was violated in several ways.
: (1) The use of his photograph as a cover of an atlas constituted a "derivative work" which therefore would have had to have been shared under a CC-BY-SA license to be compliant. (CC license Section 4(b))
: (2) Inadequate information about the CC license in the text of the atlas. (CC license Section 4(a))
: (3) Attribution term was not met because attribution was not appropriate. (CC license Section 4(c)

'''RESULT'''

The court found against Drauglis on both counts.

COLLECTIVE WORK, NOT DERIVATIVE WORK

The use of the photograph on the cover did not constitute a "derivative work". Because the atlas was published "in its entirety in unmodified form" it was a "collective work" rather than a "derivative work", which is "a work based upon the Work" such as a "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted...."

Drauglis also alleged that the photograph had been cropped for the cover, constituting a derivative work. However, this allegation appeared only on reply (not in complaint or summary judgment motion) and Drauglis provided no evidentiary support. Moreover, any cropping appeared to be so minor and insignificant that it would not constitute a derivative work.

"CC BY-SA 2.0" SUFFICIENT FOR URI REQUIREMENT

Drauglis had argued that Section 4(a) of the CC license required a link to the License or the text of the License. The Court deemed that a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), the term used in the CC license, did not require inclusion of a URL link; either a URL or the Uniform Resource ''NAME'' (URN) was sufficient to meet the terms of the license. Kappa had included "CC BY-SA 2.0", and that was the proper URN, thus satisfying Section 4(a) of the CC license.

ATTRIBUTION AND SUFFICIENT CREDIT
Drauglis had argued that credit on the back cover, when his image was published on the front cover, was insufficient to meet the attribution requirement. Other copyright information was included on the inside front cover, and a separate copyright statement was included on the bottom of each page with a map. The court held that the cover image was more akin to a map than to the book as a whole, so compared the credit given to Drauglis' photo (back cover, small 7-8 point type) to the credits given to the maps (bottom of each page, type size unidentified in the opinion) rather than to the credit given to the book as a whole (first page, "at least" 10 point type).

'''TAKE AWAY'''

Decision: The decision was an interpretation of the Creative Commons license, a case of first impression in the D.C. Circuit.

Court cited to ''[[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]'', 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Use of a whole work is suggestive of a "compilation" rather than a derivative work subject to the ND/SA terms.

Minor cropping does not constitute a derivative work subject to the ND/SA terms.

Conventional crediting of a cover photograph separate from crediting for the work as a whole is not considered "confusing" in the context of CMI (1202 copyright management information).

}}