Belgian Court Rules That Violating Creative Commons License Subjects You To Copyright Infringement Charge
from the legitimate-license dept
There hasn't been too much case law around the legitimacy of Creative Commons licenses, and some have questioned whether or not they're really legitimate. I'll admit that I do have some questions about certain aspects of CC licenses, but over in Belgium a court has pretty clearly claimed that Creative Commons licenses are perfectly legitimate. The case involved a band that had released its music under a CC attribution-non-commercial-no derivatives license. However, a theater apparently used the music (in a modified form) as part of an ad for its upcoming season, and the ad played on national radio.The band sued, noting that the theater violated the CC license and, thus, had violated copyright law. The court agreed, noting the near total failure of the theater to respect the specific license terms, and found the theater's defenses unconvincing:
The theater defended itself by arguing a mistake (the court said that as a professional of the cultural sector, they should pay more attention to licensing conditions) and its good faith (traditionally not accepted in Belgian as a defense to copyright infringement).This is certainly at least a nice boost to the legality of Creative Commons licenses, though it does sort of highlight how many users of CC-licensed content don't really understand (or pay attention to) the specific restrictions in the licenses of content they use.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: belgium, copyright, creative commons, licenses
Companies: creative commons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If it's invalid, there was never any permission to use the work in the first place, and it's copyright infringement.
If it's valid, you exceeded the scope of permission that was validly granted, and it's copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given that the copyright owner is suing for infringement, I think their opinion on the matter is clear, and they aren't trying to "work it out" at this point.
To the extent "it is unclear whether they would have permission to use the music," any such lack of clarity has nothing to do with the CC license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
* no attribution was made
* the music was slightly modified for the ad
* the advertisement, even for a theater was a commercial use prohibited by the license.
http://www.technollama.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2010-10-26-D%C3%A9cisi on-trib.-Nivelles-Lich%C3%B4dmapwa.pdf
Also the funny bit:
"But the court denied to the band the amount of damages they reclaimed (around 10.000 �- and only granted 4500� (i.e. 1500� for each attribute of the license that was not respected), considering that it was paradoxical to license works under a CC license and a non-commercial ideology but demanding a price that would be higher than commercial conditions�"
Maybe meaning that if you use CC you are not entitled to statutory damages or they don't have that in Belgium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The court certainly appears to treat the license as valid, since it evaluates whether they defendant complied with its terms, but if it felt the other way about the license's validity it would probably reach the same result on liability.
The damages logic seems faulty to me, though I have no idea what the applicable law is on that. If you don't give permission for commercial use, it seems perfectly sensible that someone should have to pay a higher-than-market price for such use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was always under the opinion that if those are the terms a content creator wanted to license their content under, then fair enough. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CC Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another landmark ruling for a Belgian Court of First Instance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise.
This certainly won't be the last case we'll hear about regarding this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No surprise.
As the CC website or @lessig will tell you, CC licenses are not instead of copyright law, they work within copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]