Im curious what peoples thoughts are on CC licensing, and whether anyone thinks Wired is in violation of my CC licensed dung beetle licensing:

Photo is available for use and distribution under Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons Licence.

I request that I am informed of any use of the image, so that I can see how and where it is used.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/dung-beetles-camera-phones/


At what point does an image become commercial? In their defence its an article that is accessible to all for free, (I assume it/the article wasnt in print), but at the other end of the scale... is my request to be contacted about the use legally binding (they didnt contact me even though I ask), as well as the fact they have paid advertising on the page...

Firstly, well done for getting your photo used - thats pretty cool.

Secondly, theyre definitely in breach here - Wired is a commercial site that makes presumably some amount of money from advertising so technically theyre breaking the terms of the licence.

I wouldnt write an angry letter first time round - play it cool - just say I see youve used the image which is fine but please attribute it properly and the charge will be £xxx. There are some pretty good guides around the web about sensible pricing for selling photos. Ive seen a lot of stories about pic editors who let this stuff slide if no-one notices but are straightforward to deal with if you call them on it. If that doesnt work second letter/email can give it both barrels!

blag a free subscription to their magazine.

I think the best you can hope for here is (maybe) a gratuity from Wired and an apology.  Theyre in the wrong, for sure but its a CC image. Making your intellectual property subject to CC youre just setting yourself up for people to use it for free - even commercially.

I was thinking about contacting them, but figure the second I do itll be an "oh s**t" moment for them and suddenly either the article will be pulled or the image replaced.

Thats what your print screen button is for

I think that may be the case if you were a photographer who had a unique idea and took the photo, and then found someone selling a photo using said idea/frame/composition etc, if you can "copyright" a scene that is.

But as it stands I doubt they could claim that the photo in question is a different person holding the same species in the same pose etc. Plus the records on Flickr would show I put it up a few years before they used it, and the exif data is in tact.

Pretty sure the Creative Commons licencing is legally binding given the wording etc, the only defence on infringment is a claim of misinterpreting the rules (thats what I feel anyway), but for something as big as Wired thats a bit of a feeble excuse.



Have spoken to the law lecturer now.

He said if the cost of what I would charge them was double £65, I could take them to small claims. I pointed out that Id probably have just charged £10 if theyd asked, and he said its Wired, they should have known better, what they have done is an infringement of intellectual property rights.

So the course of action is to email them politely stating the fee is xx for the use, copying in the lecturer so its official (could copy in a proper lawyer from uni too but whatever) giving them 7 days to sort it out on the grounds of it being there for a few months now etc.

Interesting stuff, I dont want to charge a lot but I might just to see what happens.

GAHGAHGAH

Someone has just pointed out the fact the image was commented on back in march by Wired that it was used in the article. Because of the stupid no-email notifications flickr has, I never saw the comment until now. Im guessing this means Wireds backs are covered

Im not completely sure how the licence works on photography, but doing media we have to learn about using it for music and film etc, but the way it works with music is although they have to refer to you as the person who produced it, if youre unsigned they can use your material and not have to pay for it.

You have to be incredibly careful if you are a company using music. If its out of copyright then its OK, otherwise you have to provide reparations to the owners of the copyright, if they are found.

There has been some concern that the list of the people who havent been paid is getting bigger though. Companies supposedly try to contact for copyright payment but far too often they dont try hard enough.

You arent quite exact on what you are saying.

Just because you arent signed to a music company DOES NOT allow people to copy or produce it without paying! It is still copyright!

All material whether physically signed by someone as copyright or not is still copyright. I could put one of my books on here without any copyright notification or my name attached. If someone prints it and starts to sell copies I can still sue for copyright infringement.

If you waive copyright payment then they can produce it but you have to give them that permission.

------

Zpyder, as BigSoy says you have to give them permission to publish/use your photo commercially. If you havent done that then you can still sue for damages.