Chang v. Virgin Mobile - Revision history

Kat Walsh: specific license

2013-06-21T05:13:46Z

specific license

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:13, 21 June 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|court=Northern District of Texas		\|court=Northern District of Texas
	\|date=2009/01/16		\|date=2009/01/16
	\|description=Flickr CC BY ~~photo~~ used in an Australian phone advertisement		\|description=Flickr photo licensed under CC BY 2.0 unported used in an Australian phone advertisement
	\|summary=BACKGROUND		\|summary=BACKGROUND

	An Australian mobile company used a ~~CC BY licensed~~ Flickr photo of a minor subject as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright infringement and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons alleging CC had negligently failed to sufficiently warn creators that CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights.		An Australian mobile company used a Flickr photo of a minor subject licensed under CC BY 2.0 unported as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright infringement and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons alleging CC had negligently failed to sufficiently warn creators that CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights.

	RESULT		RESULT

	Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction		Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction.

	TAKEAWAY		TAKEAWAY

CCID-diane peters at 12:27, 9 November 2012

2012-11-09T12:27:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 9 November 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:

	RESULT		RESULT

	Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction		Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction

	TAKEAWAY		TAKEAWAY

	Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not affirmatively affect publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before reusing CC-licensed works.		Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not affirmatively affect publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before reusing CC-licensed works.
	}}		}}
	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]

CCID-diane peters at 12:26, 9 November 2012

2012-11-09T12:26:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 9 November 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\|summary=BACKGROUND		\|summary=BACKGROUND

	An Australian mobile company used a CC~~-By~~ licensed Flickr photo of a ~~young girl~~ as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright ~~violation~~ and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons ~~for~~ negligently ~~failing~~ to warn creators that ~~the~~ CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights.		An Australian mobile company used a CC BY licensed Flickr photo of a minor subject as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright infringement and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons alleging CC had negligently failed to sufficiently warn creators that CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights.
	~~Australian mobile company used a CC-By Flickr photo of a young girl as part of an advertising campaign it launched in June 2007~~

	RESULT		RESULT
Line 14:		Line 13:

	TAKEAWAY		TAKEAWAY
			Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not affirmatively affect publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before reusing CC-licensed works.
	Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not ~~cover~~ publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before ~~making a commercial use of the work~~.
	}}		}}
	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]

Aurelia Schultz at 21:34, 19 March 2012

2012-03-19T21:34:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 19 March 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:

	RESULT		RESULT
			Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007. In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction
	Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit against CC a couple of months after filing their first complaint. The Texas district court later dismissed the case against the mobile company for a lack of personal jurisdiction.
	Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007
	In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction

	TAKEAWAY		TAKEAWAY

Aurelia Schultz at 23:06, 1 December 2011

2011-12-01T23:06:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 1 December 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|court=Northern District of Texas		\|court=Northern District of Texas
	\|date=2009/01/16		\|date=2009/01/16
			\|description=Flickr CC BY photo used in an Australian phone advertisement
	\|summary=BACKGROUND		\|summary=BACKGROUND

Line 19:		Line 20:
	Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not cover publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before making a commercial use of the work.		Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not cover publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before making a commercial use of the work.
	}}		}}

	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]

U.S. Curator: Category:USA

2011-09-12T18:47:16Z

Category:USA

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 12 September 2011
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not cover publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before making a commercial use of the work.		Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not cover publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before making a commercial use of the work.
	}}		}}

			[[Category:USA]]

Lila: Created page with '{{Case Law |title=Chang v. Virgin Mobile |region=United States |court=Northern District of Texas |date=2009/01/16 |summary=BACKGROUND An Australian mobile company used a CC-By l…'

2010-08-10T21:42:49Z

Created page with '{{Case Law |title=Chang v. Virgin Mobile |region=United States |court=Northern District of Texas |date=2009/01/16 |summary=BACKGROUND An Australian mobile company used a CC-By l…'

New page

{{Case Law
|title=Chang v. Virgin Mobile
|region=United States
|court=Northern District of Texas
|date=2009/01/16
|summary=BACKGROUND

An Australian mobile company used a CC-By licensed Flickr photo of a young girl as part of its advertising campaign launched in 2007. In September 2007, Plaintiffs brought suit against the mobile company under a number of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, copyright violation and breach of contract. They also brought suit against Creative Commons for negligently failing to warn creators that the CC licenses only address copyright and not privacy and publicity rights.
Australian mobile company used a CC-By Flickr photo of a young girl as part of an advertising campaign it launched in June 2007

RESULT

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit against CC a couple of months after filing their first complaint. The Texas district court later dismissed the case against the mobile company for a lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed CC from the lawsuit in November 2007
In January 2009, the Texas district court dismissed the case against the mobile company for lack of personal jurisdiction

TAKEAWAY

Creative Commons licenses only address the creator's copyright. It does not cover publicity or privacy rights. Users of CC-licensed material should make sure to clear the publicity and privacy rights of any works containing human subjects before making a commercial use of the work.
}}