In order for there to be a binding enforceable contract there must be "bargained for" legal exchange/detriment. For example, you mow my lawn and I pay you 50 bucks. Its called "consideration" and this is generally needed to have a legally enforceable contract. Here, the person using the creative commons "license" did not bargain for anything, they simply used the content within the parameters allowed by the licensor. It seems clear to me, under the typical CC circumstances, you have a license to use content, the breach of which is copyright infringement and not a contract ("benefit of the bargain" being the typical remedy ion contract law). I don't see any bargaining/exchange/consideration. However, I would look closely to the terms of use and any statements made by the author to see if there is any type of quid pro quo offer being made. This is not legal advice only my general two cents.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by AttorneySteve.
Let us not forget contract law 101....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by AttorneySteve.
Submit a story now.