SpaceX quietly changes the CC license of official photos, criticism of `` confusing ''
SpaceX Just Retroactively Put Copyright Restrictions on Its Photos-VICE
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/88449p/spacex-just-retroactively-put-copyright-restrictions-on-its-photos
SpaceX uploads official photo material to the official account ' Official SpaceX Photos ' on Flickr. Just as NASA distributes official photos in the public domain on the Internet, SpaceX originally released photo data as `` CC0 (public domain) '' in the Creative Commons license (CC license) However, according to Motherboard of technology media, “SpaceX has quietly changed the CC license of the Flickr account in the second week of December 2019”.
“CC0” refers to giving up data copyright and allowing it to be treated as the public domain. CC0 is the most unrestricted CC license, and not only can anyone freely share and edit data, it can also handle data freely regardless of profit or non-profit. I can do it. Previously, SpaceX had released photo data with a CC0 license on Flickr, so it was possible for an unrelated third party to create and sell photo books and calendars by combining CC0 photo data.
Official SpaceX Photos | Flickr
However, it has become clear that SpaceX has changed the CC license for official photo material from CC0 to ' CC 2.0 '. All CC licenses that have been published so far have been changed to CC 2.0.
CC license information is shown in the lower right corner of the photo displayed on the Flickr page, and you can see the “Display” and “Non-Profit” restrictions that indicate CC 2.0.
Starlink Mission | Official SpaceX Photos | Flickr
Motherboard wrote about this, `` The CC license change imposes restrictions that may cause confusion in how to share and reuse SpaceX photos, '' doubting the sudden CC license change Presents.
When Motherboard contacted SpaceX, the person in charge said, “Even if the CC license is changed, the news media can freely share our photos.” In the first place, “Why did the license change?” It seems that there was no clear answer about the part.
by Official SpaceX Photos
Also, John Bergmeyer , an intellectual property expert at a public knowledge of a non-profit organization, said, “The biggest limitation of changing CC licenses is to limit commercial use. It is often confusing It's a very vague term: Creative Commons itself tries to clarify its meaning, but people who publish their work under a CC license have different ideas than Creative Commons. There are comments. '
Many people may think that “for-profit use” is only when a company operating for-profit uses copyrighted material, but Bergmeyer says “copyright is It does n’t work like that. ” In the area of copyright, where the scope of rights is often difficult to understand and often confusing, what is important is 'actual use' and not 'user'.
For example, if a non-profit organization makes a donation using an image, it may be considered commercial use. However, if you use a photo as part of news reports, even if it is a for-profit company that uses the photo, it does not fall under “for-profit use”. Creative Commons for use for commercial purposes, as 'mainly if you are directed or for the purpose, or their commercial interests or financial compensation' definition is the phrase has been, the 'predominantly' The expression is vague enough to cause confusion.
by Official SpaceX Photos
In addition, Mike Masnick, who runs the technology blog Techdirt. , Described the changes in SpaceX as “irritating”. He points out that the CC license change is not intended to ban the use of photos at commercial news organizations, but directly to those who are trying to misuse SpaceX photos for commercial purposes.
Related Posts:
in Note, Posted by logu_ii