Canadian MP’s copyright troubles
p2pnet.net news:- An MP in Kamloops, BC, is in trouble for using a copyrighted photograph in her newsletter without first getting permission.
Cameraman David Wise may sue Betty Hinton’s office, ‘for up to $2,000 to cover the costs of the photograph and ‘additional damages,’ such as compensation for incurred legal fees,” says Kamloops This Week.
Wise says he doesn’t support Hinton and wouldn’t have given her permission to use the pick, says CFJC TV7.
Hinton called Wise to apologize and to offer him the money for the photograph her office would otherwise have paid, he says in This Week, which goes on:
“Wise said he would also have thought twice about letting the Liberals or New Democrats use his photograph for political purposes” and he would still have been upset had his photo credit appeared with the picture.
Also See:
Kamloops This Week – Claims his copyrighted pic was on MP’s mailout material, April 1, 2007
CFJC TV7 – Hinton unauthorised use of photo, March 26, 2006
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
“Wise said he would also have thought twice about letting the Liberals or New Democrats use his photograph for political purposes.
“I do like to choose my clients,†he said. ”
I haven’t read the alleged CC license under which he allegedly put the pictures on flickr, but where did I miss the part that if you license your photos for certain CC usages that there are clauses available for NP (Non Political) or NFPIDL (Not For Politicians I Don’t Like)?
AFAIK the creative commons don’t have such terms available.
So if he really has licensed stuff under CC he might better read what he does there. “choosing clients” isn’t exactly what those CC’s give.
____
just another CC licensing photographer
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
where do you got the information that the picture in question was CC stuff?
At least the pictures from this flickr user http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwise/
are clearly labeled
“© All rights reserved.”
No CC license what so ever at least on them
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hi: Thanks for pointing this out. I learned about it in an email from a normally reliable reader who says he saw the pic was copyrighted and ‘assumed’ it was CC.
I should have checked myself (I usually do) but because I know the person who sent the email, I didn’t.
My mistake and I’ve corrected the story.
Cheers! And thanks …
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
given the wording of the story:
“The staffer, according to Wise, had allegedly downloaded the image from http://www.flickr.com, a popular photo-sharing website.
Photographs on this site are copyright-protected under a creative-commons license, which Wise said will be accepted in a court of law. ”
the impression of your “informant” is understandable.
I had the same impression thats why i asked about the new license model “NP” etc.
it was either the fault of the original article writer that he might not know that flickr doesn’t automaticly mean its CC licensed, or he quoted Mr Wise incorrectly.
No blame on your or your “informant”