New Efforts:
Blue Parabola, LLC
PHP'ers:
Ben Ramsey
Brandon Savage
Cal Evans
Chris Shiflett
Eli White
Elizabeth Naramore
Joe LeBlanc
Justin Thorp
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Rasmus Lerdorf
Tony Bibbs
Zend Blogs
Zend DevZone
DC Social Media:
Aaron Brazell
Jessie X
Ken Yeung
New Media Jim
Shashi B
Social Times
Technologists:
Jimmy Gardner
O'Reilly Radar
Scott Berkun
Steve McConnell
Business/mISV:
Bob Walsh
Eric Sink
Gavin Bowman
Guy Kawasaki
Joel Spolsky
Micah Baldwin
Paul Graham
Planet mISV
Past Projects:
CodeSnipers
HOBY
Judicial Watch
mobile Fox Affiliates
mobile FoxNews.com
MyDearJohnLetter
NRTW
techRepublican
Great Tools I use:
BaseCamp
Drupal
getClicky
Highrise
phpUnit
Qcodo
Subversion
web2Project
Zend Framework
This is not the home of dotProject. It is the home of CaseySoftware, LLC. Any dotProject support questions should be referred to their support forums.
Nothing contained in this post should be considered legal advice. If you wish to understand copyright, licensing, and all its implications, please read the sources yourself. This is a summary of my situation and analysis.
A few weeks ago, I got what might be considered a nasty message in reference to this site. In order to not put words in the author's mouth, here it is verbatim:
It's been brought to my attention that you are using one of my photos without permission on the following page:
http://caseysoftware.com/blog/fighting-the-last-war
I'm a bit annoyed as you never wrote to ask if you could use it. As it says on my profile: "Feel free to contact me with questions or queries. All images are copyright, and if you would like permission to use or purchase my photographs please get in touch. Please respect the fact that Flickr is a third-party website, and get in touch with me personally with enquiries about end usage of my photographs. thanks!"I would ask that you kindly remove it from your website. If you had asked in the first instance, then I wouldn't have minded.
As an Open Source guy and someone who sells my intellectual property on a regular basis, I was taken aback. I work hard to ensure that all images, etc are used in accordance with the proper terms and conditions. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the Flickr photo in question. More importantly, I looked at what he posted it under (pictured right).
It was Creative Commons licensed!
Therefore, I wrote back:
The image has been removed from my site, but I believe you are mistaken:
You posted the picture in question under "Attribution", "Non-Commericial", "No Derivative works", and then linked to the Creative Commons - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en According to that license agreement, I (or anyone else) am allowed to share and use it as long as I give attribution, which I did via both the title of the picture ("War Room" taken by Fen Oswin) and linking back to the original Flickr page.
Therefore, I believe I am fully within my rights - under the Creative Commons License which you selected - to continue using this photo as I have not broken the terms. Regardless, out of respect for you, I have removed it from the site.
If you wish people to contact you and get usage permission, I would suggest that you switch the license to something more restrictive such as a standard copyright.
If you are a content creator and don't want people to use your stuff, make sure you license it properly. While just declaring something "copyrighted" may be sufficient in some cases with some people, labeling something Creative Commons and then re-defining it certainly is not.
Just like a photographer should know his cameras or a carpenter would know his tools and each would select the best for the job, you should know your licenses and do the same.
Yup
I've seen this a few times. I only wish I could charge for the service I provide when I explain licensing to someone who, unfortunately, feels entitled to something they really aren't due to their ignorance.
People just don't pay attention
I think this is one of the reasons the (US) legal system is so clogged with frivolous lawsuits. People think they have a certain legal right based on their "feeling" about it.
There was a blog post recently (couldn't find the link) that talked about how certain people just don't know how to parse specific, detailed language, like that found in code or in legal agreements. I think that might apply here
Imagine
Whenever I see messages about licensing, copyrights and other obscure ways of limiting human knowledge and wisdom by sticking in the peoples minds they are eating from the forbidden tree, when the reasons behind this are in fact the earthiest possible (like collect royalties, taxes, indemnifications...)...
... I just remember myself of a song from late John Lennon called "Imagine".
You did well Keith, the guy can keep his photo just for himself because he is not wrong... it is the people that see his photos that should rather be looking for an alternative.
Please don't read that sentence has me calling this persons attitude as selfish or childish, but rather as an advice to change from copyrighted material to open material.
I am not against copyright, I just don't buy it, and I am less against this guy because he was polite and kindly asked the removal.
I know you could be right about Creative Commons, but then again life is already so filled of problems, and what's the use of risking to face a unwilling Judge these days?
So pray that the forces that be "deliver us from evil", malicious licenses, bad judges... "and the World will live as One" (eventually).
(What a weird rhapsody there :) )
Cheers,
Pedro A.
Clueless on Copryright
I am not against copyright, I just don't buy it, and I am less against this guy because he was polite and kindly asked the removal.
Pedro, I completely agree with you. And - as I noted in the email to him - I was completely within my rights to continue using it... but realistically, I'm not willing to use someone's content against their will, even if I'm allowed to. I'd rather promote and acknowledge the people who appreciate it.
Post new comment