Comments on: Flickr, Getty Images, and revoking CC licenses http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/11/08/flickr-getty-images-and-revoking-cc-licenses/ assorted blogging by Sage Ross Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:53:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: tomslee http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/11/08/flickr-getty-images-and-revoking-cc-licenses/comment-page-1/#comment-3646 tomslee Tue, 20 Apr 2010 02:03:53 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=333#comment-3646 ... which I guess is what you were saying; I just wanted to supply an additional source. … which I guess is what you were saying; I just wanted to supply an additional source.

]]> By: tomslee http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/11/08/flickr-getty-images-and-revoking-cc-licenses/comment-page-1/#comment-3645 tomslee Tue, 20 Apr 2010 02:02:56 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=333#comment-3645 I stumbled across your interesting post. The CC issue is interesting, especially in the light of Jane Ginsburg's analysis of CC licenses at http://www.mediainstitute.org/IntellectualProperty/IPI_ViewPoints_061109.html, which suggests that you can't really change the terms of a CC license. Here is an excerpt: The author can’t change her mind; if she tries, she may make things worse. It must be emphasized that once the author has granted a public license, there’s no going back. Once publicly licensed copies are made available, they will generate more licensed copies, and it will be too late to reverse course. While the author can cease to offer the work herself with the license, or can re-offer it with a more restrictive CC license (for example, to exclude derivative works where once she allowed them), she will not be able to stop the circulation of copies previously accompanied by prior terms of the license. Downstream users whose copy of the work incorporated the prior version of the license may be entitled to rely on – and further propagate – that version. In that case, confusion will reign if different versions of CC licenses with regard to the same work are simultaneously circulating. I stumbled across your interesting post. The CC issue is interesting, especially in the light of Jane Ginsburg’s analysis of CC licenses at http://www.mediainstitute.org/IntellectualProperty/IPI_ViewPoints_061109.html, which suggests that you can’t really change the terms of a CC license.

Here is an excerpt:

The author can’t change her mind; if she tries, she may make things worse.

It must be emphasized that once the author has granted a public license, there’s no going back. Once publicly licensed copies are made available, they will generate more licensed copies, and it will be too late to reverse course. While the author can cease to offer the work herself with the license, or can re-offer it with a more restrictive CC license (for example, to exclude derivative works where once she allowed them), she will not be able to stop the circulation of copies previously accompanied by prior terms of the license.

Downstream users whose copy of the work incorporated the prior version of the license may be entitled to rely on – and further propagate – that version. In that case, confusion will reign if different versions of CC licenses with regard to the same work are simultaneously circulating.

]]>