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

[Janet Hawtin]

On 7/25/07, Adam Todd <link at todd.inoz.com> wrote:
> At 09:13 PM 25/07/2007, Roger Clarke wrote:
> >Virgin Mobile took personal photographs from the Yahoo-owned Flickr
> >website without paying, as permissable under a licensing agreement
> >with non-profit US-based copyright body Creative Commons, and used
> >them for its "Are You With Us Or What?" campaign.
>
> I wasn't aware that Creative Commons licence was a "free for
> commercial use go to town and have fun" licence.
>
> I have sought contact with CCL holders this year about using
> materials in our films and they write back with payment and royalty agreements.
>
> Needless to say I went and created my own materials.
>
> CCL as far as I understand isn't a FREE licence for commercial use.
>
> Have I interpreted the CCL process incorrectly?  (Giving credits etc aside)

Depends which creative commons licence applied, and giving credits is a factor.

if it was cc-by then attribution is the criteria, might have been ok
if they gave credit.
if it was cc-sa then they needed to share the new product in the same
way as the photo. ie remixable cc-sa ad on youtube?
if it was cc-nc non commercial then commercial use is not appropriate
if it was cc-no derivatives then it would depend if the person thought
the result was distribution or generation of a derivative. if it was
integrated in ads then it feels like a derivative.