haha wow $125 a month :/Try living in the rip off U.K with our scbuamg insurance companys , where they charge us a34000 / $6250 a year for a shitty insulting 1 Litre manual ( stick shift ) Nissan micra or similar car alike .the brainwashed scbuamgs in the U.K firmly belive that anything that is larger than a 3 door 1 Litre manual us enormous and must be reserved for anyone only over the age of 25 .i hope they all go to hell

haha wow $125 a month :/Try living in the rip off U.K with our smcabug insurance companys , where they charge us a34000 / $6250 a year for 3rd party only on a shitty insulting 0.9 Litre manual ( stick shift ) Nissan micra or similar car alike .the brainwashed smcabugs in the U.K firmly belive that anything that is larger than a 3 door 1 Litre manual is enormous and must be reserved for anyone only over the age of 25 / 30 .i hope they all go to hell

Is this lawsuit ongoing still? There’s a lot about it that surprises me. That Creative Commons is named in the suit is probably to everyone’s surprise. What obligation have they failed? The license clearly states:

“Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license.”

If these folks are crazy enough to go after Creative Commons, why not also the guy who shot and posted the photo? I mean, if he didn’t have the full rights to the photo, then it was deceptive of him to license it as such (although the warranties, disclaimers, limitations etc. should in theory protect him). But I wonder if the main issue is he doesn’t have any money and isn’t worth suing, in which case the girl’s parents might as well have him on their side.

I’m also surprised to see that Flickr isn’t a defendant. This is not the first complaint I’ve heard that Flickr did not explain the purpose of those optional licenses. Most people don’t understand that they already own the copyright to their photos (IANAL and certainly the international scene is confusing) and some people thought the CC license was a sort of super-copyright instead of what it actually does in giving away rights in a way that ensures the rights can’t be sucked up by anyone else.

Maybe it’s the similarity to the copyright symbol that has people confused? But honestly if I were Flickr I would add a clickbox making sure people at least said they had read the license, just to cover my behind, and also add a description of what copy-left and the whole free/open/sharing or whatever you want to call it movement entails, not in manifesto terms but in a way that people will at least not “accidentally” choose the wrong license.

Anyways, Virgin really goofed, and I want to say too bad for them, but on the other hand it really sucks that this more or less kills the sharing of photos of people until Creative Commons does come up with a resolution to that complex thorn. Even if you release a photo you took of your own kids, does that signify consent to some model release? And I’m absolutely certain that I’ve seen the license misapplied, so really what are my obligations as a licensee?

in other cases it is a greedy action which of course can only happen in the States