5 ms·

Creative Commons caused many issues in countries like Germany, with photographers publishing under CC with attribution clause, then hunting for sites using phot

by onli 6y ago

Creative Commons caused many issues in countries like Germany, with photographers publishing under CC with attribution clause, then hunting for sites using photos without or with not 100% correct attribution (in illegal pro-profit cooperations with lawyers) and suing the site owners for thousands of dollars. It really would have to be CC0, but even mentioning CC will raise a red flag for many now.

woah 6y ago
What was illegal about what they were doing?
- onli 6y ago
  The shared for-profit part of the scheme. It's one thing to hire a lawyer to get a license respected, it's another to institute to what amounts to a fraud scheme: Publish images with as hidden license requirements as possible, "hire" a lawyer for free with a profit sharing agreement, then sue who you can. That profit sharing agreement is illegal here, but hard to prove, and the Abmahnindustrie is actively protected by politicians (many of which are lawyers, pure coincidence of course). Edit: When they send in that notice (die Abmahnung) they will ask for money for incurred costs. Since they did not pay anything in advance - the lawyer worked for free - there were no costs. That's not legal here.
  - matkoniecz 6y ago
    > Publish images with as hidden license requirements as possible What exactly was going on? Have they published images in misleading way? Or is it case of going after people who published images with "source: Internet"? Or case of attacking people who made honest effort to attribute author? Because I am familiar with big corporations using freely licensed work and ignoring attribution requirements. For example Facebook is displaying map using OpenStreetMap data. OpenStreetMap license requires a clear attribution, visible to all users ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright ). Facebook is ignoring that, Facebook employees claimed to be working on improvements, nothing was improved - attribution is still cleverly hidden. The same with for example Snapchat.
    - onli 6y ago
      No, wrong target - big enterprises have lawyers of their own. The target goal here is the 13 year old that published a fan page on neocities. He won't defend himself, the parents will pay, and that the claimed image licensing costs are way higher than what usually can be claimed in such a situation they will not notice.
      - matkoniecz 6y ago
        If there are sources confirming targeting such cases as "13 year old that published a fan page on neocities" then I can become outraged. But for all what I know they could be targeting marketing departments using stolen photos in ads.
        codeflo 6y ago
        “If there are sources” — the answer is different depending on whether you speak German or not. The practices of the so-called “Abmahnindustrie” (legal warning industry?) are well publicized in German media and widely known in the German tech sector. It might be hard to find an authoritative source in English. As far as I understand, they don’t get that much more damages from larger cases, so they target masses of small fish instead. Individual ebay sellers, small private clubs (which are ingrained in the German culture) and the like.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        The typical target is small business, nonprofits, schools, etc. But large business/enterprise screws up with image licensing too, and ends up just paying as well.
- suyjuris 6y ago
  To add a bit more detail: as far as I understand it (and I am no lawyer) the concept of an Abmahnung is that you notify someone of their (supposed) legal transgression, and give them the option to stop their behaviour and reimburse your costs (lawyer's fees and damages) to avoid going to court. For copyright claims in particular, it may be difficult to claim large damages, but sometimes the right holders collude with their lawyers by demanding the reimbursement of non-existent fees instead, which they then split as profits. This is illegal, as you are only allowed to claim costs that you have actually paid. A (somewhat dated) example at [1] (german). [1] https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2009/11/17/abmahnanwalte-verraten-sich-selbst/ https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2009/11/17/abmahnanwalte-ver...
joshuaissac 6y ago
> hunting for sites using photos without or with not 100% correct attribution I do not see what is wrong about this part (other than the illegal(?) nexus with lawyers). CC licences still have to be complied with (or the user can contact the copyright holder for an alternative licence). GPL infringers have been taken to court as well, and a legal, for-profit litigation initiative might be a good incentive that encourages compliance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
- onli 6y ago
  There are many ways to go about this. Using the one that causes monetary harm and disincentives everyone to even consider hosting a site is not the ethical option to pick, but it's the one that is profitable in the short term. It's not like they couldn't just ask first to respect the license, but this isn't about respecting the license, it's about generating an income.
- dna_polymerase 6y ago
  Since I've been victim of this practice, let me elaborate: There are individuals in Germany (two photographers IIRC) who upload photos to the Wikipedia. The licence is always CC with attribution, but that part is badly presented on Wiki (or was). Next thing, they wait for people to use their images and go around to sue everyone who doesn't display the attribution string alongside the image. It is just predatory behavior. They guy sent me an E-Mail with an pay early option. Their claims are also this weak, that the guy trying to pull this off with me was instantly silenced after our lawyer sent him a single letter.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    Hmm, the text of the Creative Commons license is such that I would think such suits would be unsuccessful in court. Specifically, it has a section about reinstating your rights if you fix a violation of the license after you are notified. Has this ever been litigated? Of course receiving a demand letter is still a nuisance. If this is a problem that you have knowledge about, have you ever considered contacting Creative Commons about this? They could perhaps provide legal guidance or even modify the next version of the license (if there is a next version).
dbrgn 6y ago
CC0 (with a zero, without the -BY part) is equivalent to public domain. I don't see how it would allow for the German popular sport of "Abmahnen" (threatening to sue). The reason it exists is that not all jurisdictions have a concept of public domain. But yes, of course, if you use pictures under a CC-BY-* license, then you must comply with the terms (including attribution).
- onli 6y ago
  It's still called CC. I am aware of the licenses and their requirements, others who hear about the active scam will only see CC license and be alarmed. That's all I wrote above.
minxomat 6y ago
CC0 is the norm on Pexels (based in Germany). It adds a clause to forbid reselling on other sites, but that's it.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  That's not CC0, and is not even a free content license. "Right to fork" is integral to any definition of free/open content.

by onli 6y ago

woah 6y ago

What was illegal about what they were doing?

onli 6y ago
The shared for-profit part of the scheme. It's one thing to hire a lawyer to get a license respected, it's another to institute to what amounts to a fraud scheme: Publish images with as hidden license requirements as possible, "hire" a lawyer for free with a profit sharing agreement, then sue who you can. That profit sharing agreement is illegal here, but hard to prove, and the Abmahnindustrie is actively protected by politicians (many of which are lawyers, pure coincidence of course). Edit: When they send in that notice (die Abmahnung) they will ask for money for incurred costs. Since they did not pay anything in advance - the lawyer worked for free - there were no costs. That's not legal here.
- matkoniecz 6y ago
  > Publish images with as hidden license requirements as possible What exactly was going on? Have they published images in misleading way? Or is it case of going after people who published images with "source: Internet"? Or case of attacking people who made honest effort to attribute author? Because I am familiar with big corporations using freely licensed work and ignoring attribution requirements. For example Facebook is displaying map using OpenStreetMap data. OpenStreetMap license requires a clear attribution, visible to all users ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright ). Facebook is ignoring that, Facebook employees claimed to be working on improvements, nothing was improved - attribution is still cleverly hidden. The same with for example Snapchat.
  - onli 6y ago
    No, wrong target - big enterprises have lawyers of their own. The target goal here is the 13 year old that published a fan page on neocities. He won't defend himself, the parents will pay, and that the claimed image licensing costs are way higher than what usually can be claimed in such a situation they will not notice.
    - matkoniecz 6y ago
      If there are sources confirming targeting such cases as "13 year old that published a fan page on neocities" then I can become outraged. But for all what I know they could be targeting marketing departments using stolen photos in ads.
      - codeflo 6y ago
        “If there are sources” — the answer is different depending on whether you speak German or not. The practices of the so-called “Abmahnindustrie” (legal warning industry?) are well publicized in German media and widely known in the German tech sector. It might be hard to find an authoritative source in English. As far as I understand, they don’t get that much more damages from larger cases, so they target masses of small fish instead. Individual ebay sellers, small private clubs (which are ingrained in the German culture) and the like.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      The typical target is small business, nonprofits, schools, etc. But large business/enterprise screws up with image licensing too, and ends up just paying as well.
suyjuris 6y ago
To add a bit more detail: as far as I understand it (and I am no lawyer) the concept of an Abmahnung is that you notify someone of their (supposed) legal transgression, and give them the option to stop their behaviour and reimburse your costs (lawyer's fees and damages) to avoid going to court. For copyright claims in particular, it may be difficult to claim large damages, but sometimes the right holders collude with their lawyers by demanding the reimbursement of non-existent fees instead, which they then split as profits. This is illegal, as you are only allowed to claim costs that you have actually paid. A (somewhat dated) example at [1] (german). [1] https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2009/11/17/abmahnanwalte-verraten-sich-selbst/ https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2009/11/17/abmahnanwalte-ver...

joshuaissac 6y ago

> hunting for sites using photos without or with not 100% correct attribution I do not see what is wrong about this part (other than the illegal(?) nexus with lawyers). CC licences still have to be complied with (or the user can contact the copyright holder for an alternative licence). GPL infringers have been taken to court as well, and a legal, for-profit litigation initiative might be a good incentive that encourages compliance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

onli 6y ago
There are many ways to go about this. Using the one that causes monetary harm and disincentives everyone to even consider hosting a site is not the ethical option to pick, but it's the one that is profitable in the short term. It's not like they couldn't just ask first to respect the license, but this isn't about respecting the license, it's about generating an income.
dna_polymerase 6y ago
Since I've been victim of this practice, let me elaborate: There are individuals in Germany (two photographers IIRC) who upload photos to the Wikipedia. The licence is always CC with attribution, but that part is badly presented on Wiki (or was). Next thing, they wait for people to use their images and go around to sue everyone who doesn't display the attribution string alongside the image. It is just predatory behavior. They guy sent me an E-Mail with an pay early option. Their claims are also this weak, that the guy trying to pull this off with me was instantly silenced after our lawyer sent him a single letter.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Hmm, the text of the Creative Commons license is such that I would think such suits would be unsuccessful in court. Specifically, it has a section about reinstating your rights if you fix a violation of the license after you are notified. Has this ever been litigated? Of course receiving a demand letter is still a nuisance. If this is a problem that you have knowledge about, have you ever considered contacting Creative Commons about this? They could perhaps provide legal guidance or even modify the next version of the license (if there is a next version).

dbrgn 6y ago

CC0 (with a zero, without the -BY part) is equivalent to public domain. I don't see how it would allow for the German popular sport of "Abmahnen" (threatening to sue). The reason it exists is that not all jurisdictions have a concept of public domain. But yes, of course, if you use pictures under a CC-BY-* license, then you must comply with the terms (including attribution).

onli 6y ago
It's still called CC. I am aware of the licenses and their requirements, others who hear about the active scam will only see CC license and be alarmed. That's all I wrote above.

minxomat 6y ago

CC0 is the norm on Pexels (based in Germany). It adds a clause to forbid reselling on other sites, but that's it.

zozbot234 6y ago
That's not CC0, and is not even a free content license. "Right to fork" is integral to any definition of free/open content.