![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Seen on deviantart just now:
© Creative Commons license.
This image may not be altered, copied, or used in whole or in part, without express written permission. [emphasis mine]
Plus this in the comment:
Ummm...
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License: you're doing it wrong.
I wonder if it's that they don't understand how CC licenses work, given that they've apparently attempted to "copyright" something to it, or if this is some kind of boilerplate they put in all their artist's comments and they forgot that it wasn't appropriate in this case. Setting something as a CC license on dA isn't something you can do with a single mis-click, so I doubt it was purely by accident.
© Creative Commons license.
This image may not be altered, copied, or used in whole or in part, without express written permission. [emphasis mine]
Plus this in the comment:
Ummm...
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License: you're doing it wrong.
I wonder if it's that they don't understand how CC licenses work, given that they've apparently attempted to "copyright" something to it, or if this is some kind of boilerplate they put in all their artist's comments and they forgot that it wasn't appropriate in this case. Setting something as a CC license on dA isn't something you can do with a single mis-click, so I doubt it was purely by accident.
no subject
Obviously, some people seriously misunderstand the "creative commons" thing.
Hmm, I wonder if anyone at CC has noticed/been notified of people who apparently really don't get what a CC license is?
no subject
Legally, the two statements are not exclusive. They are licensing it using CC-BY-NC-ND, which is providing written permission to distribute (which, believe it or not, doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "copying") with attribution, provided such distribution is non-commercial and no derivative works are created by such distribution. Any other distribution is subject to requiring further written permssion.
IANAL and all that. However, I think you might be misunderstanding how copyright works. Likely, this person doesn't totally understand either.. but legally, their statements are sound (but might not intend what they mean it to.. or maybe it does)...
no subject
IOW, if I cannot copy or "use" it, how am I supposed to be doing anything which would then require me to attach the attribution required by the license?
no subject
The "Attribution" part of the CC license is supposed to give me permission to share the work so long as I properly attribute it to its creator. Yet they still put in text saying "you can't use this in any way at all without express permission". I suppose you could argue that by clicking the CC button they did give express permission for the one particular condition, but I think their intent was that they wanted to be contacted for any use at all, just as if they'd stuck with regular flat copyright.
no subject
However, legally, the words "copy" and "distribute" do have different meanings. You are not incorrect in a digital context that those are largely semantical, but that kind-of further goes to my point.
The fact that they uploaded it to dA means that they gave dA permission to both "copy" and "distribute". However, you as a user of dA only have the right to generally make an incidental copy to your personal web client, and no inherent right to "distribute". CC-BY-NC-ND would imply that you have rights to "distribute", provided you produce no derivative works nor distribute for commercial purposes.
And that's where it gets sticky.
Could you print 100 copies and post them around town? Probably. If you made it part of a poster, or included other works, you might be running afoul of the -ND clause. If that poster was advertising a product or service, you'd be running against the -NC clause as well. Likely even if that was advertising dA.
In essence, this sounds consistent with their "don't use my art" desire. In effect, there's very little you can legally do with CC-BY-NC-ND other than print a copy on your home printer and enjoy it without running afoul of the CC license. Just about anything you'd do with it other than that could be considered a derivative work.
no subject
How about repost it in my own blog or put it on my website in some kind of art gallery? Normally I should not do either of those things without obtaining explicit permission (things like Tumblr and Pinterest to me are very woolly); I would think they'd fall under being allowed to copy/distribute ("share") the work without having to ask separate permission for each act.
no subject
It could be considered a derivative work to post it onto your website in some kind of art gallery. The courts have actually ruled two different ways on that. Even if you didn't "copy" the file onto your own server and hotlinked it *, that might be enough so that it isn't a derivative work IF the artwork stands alone, IF it is properly attributed, and IF there is absolutely no commercial monetization of the site (no ad networks, no online store, nothing even remotely looking like a revenue stream). At minimum, there's enough for somebody to potentially send a DMCA Takedown to your ISP, and file a lawsuit if there's non-compliance.
That's straight CC-BY-ND-NC and how the courts have interpreted similar licenses in the past. Again, IANAL, although I play one on the interwebs.
It's worth noting: you don't have to be right to sue. There just has to be enough controversy. And defending yourself against a copyright lawsuit gets very expensive, very fast.. and typically the creator of the work has a huge advantage. They only have to prove ownership. You, as the defendant, will have to prove you have a license to use the work and that license was given to you by the creator.
* Note: that's the difference between "copying" and "distribution" as viewed legally, in this context.