Difference between revisions of "Chang v. Virgin Mobile"
(specific license) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|court=Northern District of Texas | |court=Northern District of Texas | ||
|date=2009/01/16 | |date=2009/01/16 | ||
| − | |description=Flickr CC BY | + | |description=Flickr photo licensed under CC BY 2.0 unported used in an Australian phone advertisement |
|summary=BACKGROUND | |summary=BACKGROUND | ||
| − | An Australian mobile company used a | + | An Australian mobile company used a Flickr photo of a minor subject licensed under CC BY 2.0 unported as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright infringement and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons alleging CC had negligently failed to sufficiently warn creators that CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights. |
RESULT | RESULT | ||
| − | Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction | + | Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
TAKEAWAY | TAKEAWAY | ||
Latest revision as of 05:13, 21 June 2013
Country/Region
United States
Court name
Northern District of Texas
Published
2009/01/16
More decisions in this case
Description
Flickr photo licensed under CC BY 2.0 unported used in an Australian phone advertisement
Case summary
BACKGROUND
An Australian mobile company used a Flickr photo of a minor subject licensed under CC BY 2.0 unported as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright infringement and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons alleging CC had negligently failed to sufficiently warn creators that CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights.
RESULT
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction.
TAKEAWAY
Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not affirmatively affect publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before reusing CC-licensed works.
