Do you read the License?

Open Content Movement Finds a Poster Child From MTV
In early March, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled that Dutch gossip magazine Weekend infringed the copyright in four photos which were posted on photography website flickr. Adam Curry, who, among other things, is a former MTV "video jockey," had posted the photos under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, which allows photos to be used freely (with attribution) for non-commercial purposes, but not for commercial purposes (such as the use by Weekend). Weekend defended Curry's action by arguing that it was misled by the notice "This photo is public" that was posted with the photos, and therefore did not click on the Creative Commons "CC" symbol accompanying a "some rights reserved" notice (also posted with the photos), which led to a summary of the terms of the license. The court rejected this argument, stating that "it may be expected from a professional party like [the publisher of Weekend] that it conduct a thorough and precise examination before publishing in Weekend photos originating from the internet." The Curry decision thus holds (at least under Dutch law) that not only are Creative Commons licenses valid, but more suprisingly that publishers are under a duty to understand and investigate such licenses even in the face of a confusing statement like "This photo is public."

Source: Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Steptoe & Johnson LLP