[LINK] Oz: 'Virgin backs down on ads'

[Eleanor Lister]

to those who say it is allowable to use the material anyway you like
under the Creative Commons license
- you are correct, it is a form of open source

to those who say it is wrong under Moral Rights to mutilate images in an
insulting way
- you are correct, the Moral Right called Integrity means that you
cannot use somebody's work to derogate them

also notice that there appear to be violations of the Moral Right called
Attribution
- you are required to nominated the source of the work, even if it is
open source

Moral Rights cannot be sold, or inherited, and until a recent change by
Mr Ruddock, they could not be traded
- now under AWAs you can trade off your Moral Rights to your employer,
which rather defeats their purpose

Scott Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 09:13:53PM +1000, Roger Clarke wrote:
>   
>> The Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, based at the University of NSW, 
>> yesterday condemned Virgin Mobile's use of the Flickr images, 
>> especially those involving people aged under 18.
>>
>> "They should just respect their moral rights under copyright ... and 
>> go ask them like they would anyone else," the centre's executive 
>> director, David Vaile, said.
>>     
>
> As much as I agree that what Virgin has done here is inexcusable, this
> statement simply doesn't make sense.  The photographers of these images
> have selected to give anyone a right to use these photos for any use that
> they desire - they did this by selecting the to license them under the
> Creative Commons license.  The company using them has no "moral right"
> to ask them for permission for the photos to be used any more than you
> have a moral right for asking someone if you can use a piece of public
> domain software.
>
> The real issue here is not around the use of the photos as such (with the
> exception of one image, which may not have been under the commercial
> use Creative Commons license at the time it was used), but the fact that
> they used the photos without having a model release for the people _in_
> the photos, which is outright illegal in Australia - regardless of what
> license the photos are covered by.
>
>
> Based on comments made by many of the photographers involved it's clear
> that many of them didn't realise what they were actually doing when they
> selected to license their photos under the Creative Commons License
> (especially the commercial-use version of it), but that in itself is
> hardly Virgin Mobiles fault...
>
>   Scott.
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>   


-- 
------------
Eleanor Ashley Lister
South Sydney Greens
http://ssg.nsw.greens.org.au
webmistress at ssg.nsw.greens.org.au