Someones child on your mug

"Now for sale: a mug with someone else's child." And: "Please take your time to browse our collection for your son or daughter." These texts are from the website Koppie Koppie of designer Yuri Veerman and reporter Dimitri Tokmetzis. On the website mugs with random pictures of children from Filckr are for sale. And yes, it is a joke, but a joke with a serious message.

Veerman and Tokmetzis have created their website to remind people they should be more careful with the things they put on the internet. The pictures used on the mugs are published on Flickr under a license that allows anyone to use the pictures for any purpose.

Flickr has a number of possibilities to share pictures. Options are for instance to completely restrict any use by third parties, or to only allow non-commercial use. As the parents of the children in the used pictures have chosen not to use any restrictions, a possible consequence of this is shown by Veerman and Tokmetzis. A clear warning for any responsible parent!

Facebook statement

The new Data Use Policy of Facebook will become active on January 30, 2015. As this blogpost from SOLV (in Dutch) explains, there are only a few small changes. In general, it is important to realize that the policies of Facebook are subject to the possibilities of the law. Even Facebook should abide by the applicable laws and it is clear that there are a few questions to be asked regarding their policies. How these questions should be answered will become clear in the near future.

Following the annoucement of the new policy, the below "statement" started to appear on Facebook timelines.

Aside from all opinions and fact regarding the new Data Use Policy, the posting of this text on your timeline is nonsense. Legally, this is a useless text. There is no "Code of Intellectual Property", the UCC is American law (not valid outside the USA) and the Rome Statute is about the International Criminal Court which handles cases of genocide and war crimes.

Do not post this text to you timeline, you will look like a fool!

Copyright on source code

Source code is copyrighted, but actual case law that is specifically about source code is scarce. At the closing of last year, the court of Amsterdam ruled a final verdict regarding this subject.

During the court case of December 29, 2014, the most important issue is whether the company EverywhereIM infringes the copyright of the plaintiff on the source code of a number of apps, by updating the apps through third parties. As these apps were specifically designed for the company, EverywhereIM is of the opinion that they are owner of the copyright and that the plaintiff merely followed instructions. According to EverywhereIM they have had a leading role in the creation, design and content of the apps. During the publication of the apps, EverywhereIM is mentioned as owner and creator.

However, plaintiff shows screenprints of source code of the apps in which the trade name of the plaintiff is used multiple times, together with copyright notices. Also, names of employees of Sveak (a company plaintiff has cooperated with) are mentioned. Further, the plaintiff is able to show emails that mention that plaintiff was in fact the creator of the source code and also that plaintiff was actively updating the source code when needed.

Based on this evidence the court rules that plaintiff has created the source code by his own knowledge and decisions and that therefore the copyright belongs to plaintiff. The use of (open) source code fragments of third parties does not change this fact, as the overall arrangement of the source code by plaintiff constitutes a new copyrighted work.

By ordering third parties to update and alter the original source code, EverywhereIM infringes the copyright of plaintiff.

It should be clear that in case a company has third parties developing software for them, there is a neccessity of making arrangements on the intellectual property rights. An assignment of copyright from developer to client (apart from design, texts and concept also including source code) is advisable. At the very least there should be agreement on the recycling and updating of the created software.

The official court case (in Dutch)