景色文章名列前茅50 景色錄影景色軟景色幫助

家庭誤會開放來源，恐慌， &起訴錯誤Personâ€ ¦

開放來源應該是簡化許可證發行方式和分享您的軟件或音樂或者錄影或者其他內容與大量-自由地和寬宏大量地。問題是，什麼發生，當事開放來源被發現a (可能的)時侵害一些權利？什麼發生在它的衍生物？他們是否正義包裝商店并且發現其他，或者他們是否是法律上負責他們的行動？在什麼似乎保持平衡成為一種陸標場合關於這個論點，我們將發現。

一個德克薩斯的家庭現在起訴維京機動性為使用他們的女兒相片 Alison Chang，在廣告活動-是，它攝影師發布抓住 Flickr 在之下創造性的共同性歸屬准許，并且那是維京機動性得到了相片從的地方。問題是，在相片以為特色的女孩不知道使用她的相片-或那它被發布了根據創造性的共同性執照。

當案件當前站立， Changs起訴 消費者 開放來源工作而不是原始的黨負責任對工作的發行作為開放來源材料，不用適當媒介同意形式.

它比那得到複雜。出現在媒介需要媒介同意形式，但張貼在網上相片不技術上。至少，不-這另一議題是否是在賭注的？那麼在這種情況下，攝影師在他們的權利和發行之內在網上，充分地張貼相片相片本身作為開放來源工作。然後開放來源工作(而不是實際人)用於媒介出現-什麼然後是判決？為什麼家庭起訴維京流動而不是攝影師？他們是否(和他們的律師)充分地瞭解開放來源和創造性共同性准許的概念？他們使用開放來源材料的終端用戶是否有一種法律責任保證材料在冠軍法律上乾淨地和完全被發布了作為開放來源？多遠你必須是？

仍然不混淆足够為您？很好，維京機動性在他們的廣告增加了侮辱到傷害，加說明相片以什麼數額-或多或少-侮辱對Alison Chang。問題開放來源的主題』 d相片是否可以使用反對一.的自已一個法律或一個道德問題？ Does releasing a photo to the public under a lax license let it be used by anyone for any purpose, even when “hurting” the original producer/subject?

This is quite the legal tangle, and we’re betting it’ll be settled out of court – but even if it is, it’s certain to come up later in one court case or another. We’re not lawyers, but this is clearly a case that poses quite the risk to open source, attempting to redefine just how “open” it really is. Here’s a re-cap of the issues at stake:

Are “consumers” of open source legally liable for using “dirty” open source’d code? Do they have a legal requirement to verify its validity before using it?
Will legal consent forms be required for simply posting photos online? What about “personal” sites like Flickr, MySpace, and Facebook?
Just how global is an open source copyright? In this case, Virgin Mobile Australia is charged with breaking a US copyright.
Previous court cases have ruled that bloggers are journalists in their own right. Does the freedom of press protect online photo-journalism, too?¹

It’s unlikely that all of these issues will actually appear in a court of law, but it certainly is possible. The first and second are very likely to appear, and have far-reaching effects; whereas the latter two are stretching it a bit, but anything is likely when money is involved. Creative Commons has an optional “country” setting that determines, in the case of a legal dispute, which country’s laws and jurisdictions shall apply. We have no details at the moment which setting was specified, but the default is USA, and that’s where the photographer and subject both resided. The Creative Commons license is recognized by law in both the United States and Australia.

Should it actually be ruled that Virgin Mobile is guilty as charged, a huge online panic in the open source community will likely ensue. At the moment, most big open source projects perform a cursory check on any code/content submitted for possible legal violations (and, let’s be honest, for plausible deniability more than anything else). But in some cases (read: Wikipdia) it’s almost impossible to practically do so, thanks to the enormous volume of content being constantly contributed and the difficutly of vigorously checking it for legal trespasses. What happens when you can no longer simply trust the EULA that ships with a particularly code library? Or when the content you grab off of Wikipedia (technically licensed under the GFDL) isn’t as open source as it claims to be? And most importantly, that using such “dirty” materials makes you, in the eyes of the law, guilty of content/idea theft?

If any ruling of this sort were to be passed with an actual verdict on the open source angle, it would instantly destroy the entire spirit of open source. No one would be able to trust any open source project or the other, destroying one of the most important benefits of using an open source license the first place: being able to instantly convey the rights a consumer has or doesnâ€™t by simply telling them it’s “GPL” or “BSD” or whatever. You’d need something tantamount to a chain of custody for each and every modification/copy, telling people exactly where each bit of code or content came from and what grounds you had to use it, and no project would be safe without a lawyer of its own. In a word, it’d be the death of open source… In the United States, that is; because the rest of the world (for the most part) is blissfully immune to many of the issues outlined in this post.

Not only does the United States system of copyrights and software patents have to be rewritten to prevent ridiculous things like this taking a toll on the entire open source industry, but also a legally-recognized free software “Bill of Rights” needs to be drafted to ensure that lawsuits like this one donâ€™t jeopardize everything that the online community has been working on for decades. Just like the current Bill of Rights defines basic freedoms for US Citizens that no law can overrule (the Patriot Act excluded because GWB says so), free software needs a similar document to set down its (proverbial) foot and ensure that open source lives on â€“ freely, as it was meant to be.

It’s important to note that the Creative Commons license that the photo was released under was not marked as non-commercial, and that Virgin Mobile fully complied with the letter of the Creative Commons license, by properly citing the Flickr page the photo was grabbed from at the bottom of their advertisement. As far as Virgin Mobile is concerned, they didn’t really do anything wrong. It is no wonder most magazines still insist on getting explicit legal permission before including anything in their issues, even if the EULA/copyright is clearly indicated on the site/source!
This might just be a case of a family trying to get rich quick; and if it is, it’s quite unfortunate that the entire spirit of open source has to be put on trial for a couple of bucks and a 16-year-old emotional teenager’s injured self image. If itâ€™s not, itâ€™s still a damn shame.