Jeg digger Creative Commons – jeg vil gjerne dele bildene mine og andre diverse ting, slik at andre folk kan bruke dem. For å spre kunnskap, gi inspirasjon og kanskje fremme litt kreativitet. Det som er fallgruven, er jo at langt fra alle skjønner konseptet.
Selv er jeg en ivrig bruker av min Flickr-konto og jeg trives godt med å laste opp bildene og surfe der. Det hender at jeg selv poster noen av fotografiene jeg finner på Flickr – enten på min egen blogg, eller i en redaksjonell sammenheng på Bandens blogg (radioprogram på P3). Alt under kurant CC-lisens.
Men det virker som folk ennå ikke helt har skjønt at det finnes ulike typer CC-lisenser, og at man ikke bare kan publisere bildene som man selv ønsker – bare fordi det ikke er “all rights reserved”. Flere ganger har jeg merket at halv-ukjente reisemagasiner på nett og diverse små nyhetssider (som helt tydelig tjener penger på innholdet gjennom reklame og betalingstjenester, og som har redaksjoner med flere skribenter ansatt) bare har tatt bilder og publisert. Helt utenfor det som gjelder for den lisensen mine bilder ligger ute med:
Så lenge folk ikke tjener penger på bildene mine, så er det vel bare fett at de spres og gleder folk på en eller annen måte rundt om i verden liksom.
Men nå senest mandag denne uka, da jeg googlet meg selv, så jeg dette. Baltic Reports hadde publisert et fotografi som jeg tok i Estland for noen år siden. Jaja, tenkte jeg først. Men så ble jeg litt irritert, siden dette ikke akkurat var første gangen, og etter hvert så gikk det en djevel i meg.
Her følger den litt syrlige (mest for å være streng og ha det litt artig, ikke primært for å få igjen noen penger altså) korrespondansen mellom meg og Baltic Reports redaktør: (Forøvrig så slettet de bildet og hele artikkelen rett etter ordvekslingen..)
Hello, my name is Nareas Sae-Khow. I’m a journalist in the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), working as a radio reporter. But I’m also an eager amateur photographer in my spare time, and I noticed that Baltic Reports have published a photo taken by me, without permission, in this story:
’Heat wave unrelenting’ – written by Jim Cook: http://balticreports.com/?p=22084 (Ja, artikkelen er altså slettet)
As you can see, this photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/nareas/686900632/in/set-72157600590390978 (original photo) is only to be used under this particular Creative Commons license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
So I demand to get a fee from Baltic Reports for violiting the copyrights clearly explained on my Flickr-account.
Standard Norwegian freelance photo fee is NOK 1978 – but as you have already published it, in commercial purpose, without my permission, I demand three times the fee, NOK 5934 (€ 749).
Translated into English: http://translate.google.no/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.no%2Fno%2FLag_og_klubber%2FFrilansjournalistene%2FFrilanssatsene%2F&sl=no&tl=en
Please use this bank account for the payment:
The copyright has not been violated, our legal department should send you a letter explaining.
As a courtesy if you like I can remove the photo, although under the terms of the license you set for that photograph we are under no obligation to do so. That would be a shame, as it’s a very nice photo.
Dear Mr. Sae-Khow,
Baltic Reports has not violated the Creative Commons license as we attributed the photograph to you, the said author, and Baltic Reports has not used it and is not using said photograph for a commercial purpose. The image is not being sold on our website, nor is it being displayed behind a paywall that requires viewers to pay money to access the photograph.
Baltic Reports is willing to remove the photograph if the author requests, although there is no legal requirement in the “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic” license for Baltic Reports to do so.
Baltic Reports is under no obligation to pay the author for use of this photograph as is currently being displayed and your request for payment is denied.
— Baltic Reports Management
This is is to be frank, slubberish, since you clearly oprate as a online news organisation, earning money with all the ads all over the site on http://balticreports.com/.
You know, Norways’s biggest news site is http://vg.no – they don’t have any pictures for sale, nor do they have a paywall. Exactly as other big and known and serious news sites as http://www.guardian.co.uk/ and http://www.nytimes.com/.
Do they pay for the photographs that is being published? Yes.
Do we at http://nrk.no pay for our newsworthy pictures? Yes.
I thought that an editor as Nathan Greenhalgh (also freelance photographer? http://lt.linkedin.com/pub/nathan-greenhalgh/14/41b/b70) would be more than understanding, honoring the licence, and paying for pictures being published.
Well, if Baltic Reports ain’t willing to pay – I guess it’s a nice opportunity to see what other legal media experts think about Baltic Reports use of my photograph.
Like any Norwegian media outlet, Baltic Reports pay for original photos that aren’t in the Creative Commons, but not for Creative Commons works. As a professional suggestion, if you want people to pay for your photos don’t use the Creative Commons license, just put “All Rights Reserved.” That’s what I do with my photos.
In terms of what constitutes commercial usage, Flickr also has advertising on it, so are they violating the “non-commercial” license, too? Simply displaying a photo on a website that has an advertisement on it is not “commercial usage” as the terms of this license indicate. Official photos from the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian governments for media use are distributed under the same exact same “non-commercial” license as your photo, Nareas.
Well you know, the reason for putting my pictures out there with thais particular CC-license is that private bloggers/non-commercial organisations and sites can use them as they wish – free!
But when a commercial news site as – Baltic Reports – use the picture, they aren’t allowed so freely. Stated in the legal code of thais perticular CC-license:
You know that Creative Commons have more than just one version?
Regarding Flickr – I choose to publish my pictures there. Flickr don’t steal them without my knowledge.
Baltic Reports has clearly done that.
Sure, let’s look at the license.
Here’s the pertinent text:
“You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.”
The photo of yours on BalticReports.com is not being used for commercial advantage or private monetary compensation — it’s merely being displayed just as it would on any other website. We’re not using the photo as a click-thru advertisement, we’re not selling it and it’s not behind a paywall.
You are misunderstanding and oversimplifying the terms of the license. I strongly suggest using another license for your works, such as All Rights Reserved if you don’t want your photographs to be displayed on certain websites.
Well, to be honest, I think you sir have misunderstood the concept of the differenr types of Creative Commons licenses.
I want to share my pictures and anybody who writes or create anything on the web can use my pictures, if they do so as described in the license.
But the line is clearly between commercial/non-commersial use. And as stated before – Baltic Reports is clearly using this in the article, that you publish – so you can earn money of the traffic on your site. As any other news organizations.
You will be hearing from me again, if you ain’t willing to pay any fee for the use of this photo.
Then I will consult with our legal department here about the situation.
Go right ahead and talk to them, they will tell you the same thing.
Please cease contacting me about this issue.
- Så mitt spørsmål er: Holder dere med redaktøren eller med meg i dette tilfellet?
- Enda viktigere: Er CC-lisensene egentlig for kranglete og vanskelige å skjønne?
Jeg synes å merke at CC-bilder blir (mis)brukt også i saker skrevet av norske nettredaksjoner i ny og ne. Ved at man ikke lenker til originalen og selve lisensen/ikke navngir fotograf eller bruker det selv om det er for “noncommercial use”.
- Creative Commons Publishes Study of “Noncommercial Use”
- Journalisten: Nettvennlig deling av åndsverk
- Gisle Hannemyr i en kommentar på NRKbeta om CC og ikke-kommersiell bruk
- Eirik Solheim: They stole an image of my son and just had to pay $4000
- Har dere selv kanskje noen problematiske CC-historier å dele med oss?