Curry v. Audax - Revision history

CCID-tvol at 18:08, 27 June 2013

2013-06-27T18:08:59Z

Kat Walsh: specific license

2013-06-21T05:16:30Z

specific license

CCID-shinchpearson at 18:43, 20 December 2012

2012-12-20T18:43:26Z

Aurelia Schultz at 21:23, 1 December 2011

2011-12-01T21:23:59Z

Mzeinstra at 14:44, 30 May 2011

2011-05-30T14:44:38Z

Aurelia Schultz at 22:08, 1 February 2011

2011-02-01T22:08:58Z

Aurelia Schultz at 18:04, 18 January 2011

2011-01-18T18:04:20Z

Aurelia Schultz at 18:03, 18 January 2011

2011-01-18T18:03:07Z

Aurelia Schultz: Created page with "{{Case Law |title=Curry v. Audax |region=The Netherlands |date=2006/03/09 |summary=BACKROUND Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published som..."

2011-01-18T18:02:17Z

Created page with "{{Case Law |title=Curry v. Audax |region=The Netherlands |date=2006/03/09 |summary=**BACKROUND** Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published som..."

New page

{{Case Law
|title=Curry v. Audax
|region=The Netherlands
|date=2006/03/09
|summary=**BACKROUND**

Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published some photos from a family vacation onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license.

A Dutch tabloid reprinted some of the photos in a feature on his daughter.

Curry sued the tabloid for endangerment for publishing private information about his family and for copyright violation over the improper user of his Flickr photos.

**RESULT**

In March 2006, the Dutch court dismissed the endangerment claim but ruled in Curry's favor over the copyright claim.

The court held that Curry owned the copyright of the photos and that the tabloid violated the NonCommercial term of the CC license by publishing the photos without seeking Curry's separate permission.

The court enjoined the tabloid from publishing the photos and threatened them with a per photo fine if they violated the license terms again.

Several years later, a different tabloid published some of Curry's CC-licensed photos in an article about him, but the parties settled outside of court.

**TAKE AWAY**

Curry's case was the first lawsuit that ever focused on the CC licenses.

His victory on the copyright claims demonstrates and set the precedent that Creative Commons licenses are enforceable in court under copyright law.
}}

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Curry argued that the tabloid violated the BY-NC-SA license by using the photos in a commercial magazine and by not including a reference to the CC license.
-The tabloid argued that it thought they photos could be taken and used because they were marked as "public" on Flickr.  It also argued that in terms of compensation, the photos had no value because they were available for anyone to view online.
+The tabloid argued that it thought the photos could be taken and used because they were marked as "public" on Flickr.  It also argued that in terms of compensation, the photos had no value because they were available for anyone to view online.
 '''RESULT'''

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |region=Netherlands
 |date=2006/03/09
-|description=Dutch court upheld CC BY-NC-SA license when Flickr photos were used in a tabloid
+|description=Dutch court upheld CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 unported license when Flickr photos were used in a tabloid
 |summary='''BACKGROUND'''
-Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published  photos onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license.
+Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published  photos onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license (BY-NC-SA 2.0 unported).
 A Dutch tabloid reprinted four of the photos in a story about the Curry family's public persona verses real private life.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |date=2006/03/09
 |description=Dutch court upheld CC BY-NC-SA license when Flickr photos were used in a tabloid
-|summary='''BACKROUND'''
+|summary='''BACKGROUND'''
 Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published  photos onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |region=Netherlands
 |date=2006/03/09
 |summary='''BACKROUND'''

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |summary='''BACKROUND'''
-Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published some photos from a family vacation onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license.
+Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published  photos onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license.
-A Dutch tabloid reprinted some of the photos in a feature on his daughter.
+A Dutch tabloid reprinted four of the photos in a story about the Curry family's public persona verses real private life.
-Curry sued the tabloid for endangerment for publishing private information about his family and for copyright violation over the improper user of his Flickr photos.
+Curry sued the tabloid for violating the portrait rights of his family and for copyright violation over the improper user of his Flickr photos.
-'''RESULT'''
+Curry argued that the tabloid violated the BY-NC-SA license by using the photos in a commercial magazine and by not including a reference to the CC license.
-In March 2006, the Dutch court dismissed the endangerment claim but ruled in Curry's favor over the copyright claim.
+The tabloid argued that it thought they photos could be taken and used because they were marked as "public" on Flickr.  It also argued that in terms of compensation, the photos had no value because they were available for anyone to view online.
-The court held that Curry owned the copyright of the photos and that the tabloid violated the NonCommercial term of the CC license by publishing the photos without seeking Curry's separate permission.
+'''RESULT'''
-The court enjoined the tabloid from publishing the photos and threatened them with a per photo fine if they violated the license terms again.
+The Dutch court held that, in the future, the tabloid could not use any of the photos from Flickr in the future unless under the terms of the photos' CC license or with permission from Curry.
 Several years later, a different tabloid published some of Curry's CC-licensed photos in an article about him, but the parties settled outside of court.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Case Law
 |title=Curry v. Audax
-|region=The Netherlands
+|region=Netherlands
 |date=2006/03/09
 |summary='''BACKROUND'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 18 January 2011
Line 26:		Line 26:

	His victory on the copyright claims demonstrates and set the precedent that Creative Commons licenses are enforceable in court under copyright law.		His victory on the copyright claims demonstrates and set the precedent that Creative Commons licenses are enforceable in court under copyright law.
		+
		+	Decision: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/File:Curry-Audax-English.pdf
	}}		}}