[News Bytes] CC and GPL upheld in courts

[Rakesh 'arky' Ambati]

Hi List,

Two stories about GPL and CC being upheld by courts in
different continents.Any commentary and explanation of
the impact of such rulings would very enlightening.

TIA

--arky  


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[GNU/FSF Press] Press Release: GPL tested in
US courts in Wallace
Date: 	Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:52:39 -0500
From: 	Peter Brown <peterb at fsf.org>
To: 	info-press at gnu.org



The GPL tested in US courts - Wallace Vs FSF.

The GNU General Public License stands firm.

On Monday March 20, 2006 US Federal Judge John Daniel
Tinder, dismissed
the Sherman Act antitrust claims brought against the
Free Software
Foundation. The claims made by Plaintiff Daniel
Wallace included: that
the General Public License (GPL) constituted a
contract, combination or
conspiracy; that it created an unreasonable restraint
of trade; and that
the FSF conspired with IBM, Red Hat Inc., Novell and
other individuals
to pool and cross-license their copyrighted
intellectual property in a
predatory price fixing scheme.

Peter Brown, FSF Executive Director, responded to the
news, "As the
author of the GPL and copyright holder on the largest
body of GPL'd
covered free software, the FSF hears many theories of
potential legal
claims and challenges to the GPL. We hear the fear,
uncertainty and
doubt (FUD) expressed, that the GPL has never been
tested in court, and
that somehow that is a sign of its weakness. Nothing
could be further
from the truth of course. Put quite simply, if you
don't accept the
terms of the GPL, then you have no rights to the
copyrighted works it
covers. What is there left to test? The GPL is a
software license, it is
not a contract. It gives permissions from the
copyright holder. You
don't want to accept those permissions? End of
discussion."

On Monday, a US Federal Court Judge dismissed Daniel
Wallace's case
saying "[The GPL] acts as a means by which certain
software may be
copied, modified and redistributed without violating
the software's
copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages,
rather than
discourages, free competition and the distribution of
computer operating
systems, the benefits of which directly pass to
consumers. These
benefits include lower prices, better access and more
innovation."

Brown continued, "Let us all stop and consider the
consequences of what
this US Federal Judge has said. On being presented
with the facts
surrounding the GPL, he was able to define a range of
benefits available
to those that value the freedoms delivered by the GPL.
The question we
are all left with is, why would anyone put up with the
inferred
consequences of proprietary software?", and, "If you
care about lower
prices, better access to software, or more innovation,
then GPL'd
software is for you. Or as the Free Software would
describe that, you
value freedom".

Having dismissed the case, and finding in favor of the
FSF and against
Wallace. The Judge also allowed FSF costs against
Wallace. Wallace, now
has thirty days to appeal the decision, but the FSF
expects no relevant
news on this matter.

--
About the Free Software Foundation
The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is
dedicated to promoting
computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and
redistribute
computer programs. The FSF promotes the development
and use of free (as
in freedom) software - particularly the GNU operating
system and its
GNU/Linux variants - and free documentation for free
software. The FSF
also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and
political issues of
freedom in the use of software. Their Web site,
located at www.fsf.org ,
is an important source of information about GNU/Linux.
Donations to
support their work can be made at
http://donate.fsf.org. Their
headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES UPHELD IN DUTCH COURT
Submitted by Mia Garlick on 2006-03-16 10:49 AM.

San Francisco, USA, & Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
March 15, 2006

The first known court decision involving a Creative
Commons license
was handed down on March 9, 2006 by the District Court
of Amsterdam.
The case confirmed that the conditions of a Creative
Commons license
automatically apply to the content licensed under it.

The proceedings arose when former MTV VJ and
podcasting guru Adam
Curry published photos of his family on the well-known
online photo-
sharing site Flickr under a Creative Commons
Attribution-
Noncommercial-Sharealike license. The Dutch tabloid
Weekend
reproduced four of the photos in a story about Curry*s
children.

Curry sued Weekend for copyright and privacy
infringement. As to the
copyright claim, Weekend argued that it was misled by
the notice
*this photo is public* (which is a standard feature of
all Flickr
images that are viewable by the public), and that the
link to the CC
license was not obvious. Weekend had assumed that no
authorization
from Curry was needed. Audax, the publisher of
Weekend, argued that
it was informed of the existence of the CC license
only much later by
its legal counsel.

The Court rejected Weekend*s defense, and held as
follows:

*All four photos that were taken from www.flickr.com
were made by
Curry and posted by him on that website. In principle,
Curry owns the
copyright in the four photos, and the photos, by
posting them on that
website, are subject to the [Creative Commons]
License. Therefore
Audax should observe the conditions that control the
use by third
parties of the photos as stated in the License. The
Court understands
that Audax was misled by the notice *This photo is
public* (and
therefore did not take note of the conditions of the
License).
However, it may be expected from a professional party
like Audax that
it conduct a thorough and precise examination before
publishing in
Weekend photos originating from the Internet. Had it
conducted such
an investigation, Audax would have clicked on the
symbol accompanying
the notice *some rights reserved* and encountered the
(short version
of) the License. In case of doubt as to the
applicability and the
contents of the License, it should have requested
authorization for
publication from the copyright holder of the photos
(Curry). Audax
has failed to perform such a detailed investigation,
and has assumed
too easily that publication of the photos was allowed.
Audax has not
observed the conditions stated in the License [*]. The
claim [*] will
therefore be allowed; defendants will be enjoined from
publishing all
photos that [Curry] has published on www.flickr.com,
unless this
occurs in accordance with the conditions of the
License.*

The full text of the decision (in Dutch) is available
here.
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/zoeken/dtluitspraak.asp?searchtype=ljn&lj
n=AV4204&u_ljn=AV4204

*We are very happy with this decision as it
demonstrates that the
millions of creators who use creative commons licenses
are
effectively protected against abuses of their
willingness to
contribute to the commons,* said Paul Keller, Public
Project Lead for
Creative Commons in the Netherlands.

*This decision confirms that the Creative Commons
licensing system is
an effective way for content creators to manage their
copyrights
online,* said Lawrence Lessig, Creative Commons CEO &
Chairman, *The
decision should also serve as a timely reminder to
those seeking to
use content online, to respect the terms that apply to
that content.*

About Creative Commons Netherlands

Creative Commons Netherlands is collaboration between
Creative
Commons Corporation, Waag Society, Netherland
Knowledgeland
Foundation and the Institute for Information Law of
the University of
Amsterdam. Creative Commons is supported by the Dutch
Ministry for
Education, Culture and Sciences. For general
Information (in Dutch)
visit their site. http://nl.creativecommons.org/

About Creative Commons

Creative Commons is a not-for-profit organization,
founded in 2001,
that promotes the creative re-use of intellectual and
artistic
workswhether owned or in the public domain. Creative
Commons
licences provide a flexible range of protections and
freedoms for
authors, artists, and educators that build upon the
"all rights
reserved" concept of traditional copyright to offer a
voluntary "some
rights reserved" approach. It is sustained by the
generous support of
various foundations including the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, the Omidyar Network Fund, the Hewlett
Foundation, and the
Rockefeller Foundation as well as members of the
public. For general
information, visit their site.
http://creativecommons.org/

Contact

Paul Keller
Project Lead
CC Netherlands, Amsterdam
Email: paul at waag.org