Embedding Content - Are Links Exempt from Copyright? The Lawsuit
Last year there was this highly linked discussion here on this blog prompted by a discussion on BoingBoing about the state of embedded media and the creative common license on ad filled (commercial) blogs. One of the arguments why the Creative Commons License would not even apply at all for embedded media content was that all embeds are links - a kind of bombshell for content creators using the creative commons license and wanting to be sure its not used by others to make money with your content. Asking some lawyers around the world and some emails from and to the Creative Commons foundation later the issue has not been resolved. The foundation was that here in Germany embeds are protected under normal copyright/left they where published - where in the states embedded content is seen as links.
Interestingly this morning comes in news that there is a high profile high stakes lawsuit going on in the USofA that will clearify exactly if links themself fall under copyright. While "the freedom of the net is at stake" is the headlines you will see around the world I have a different take on that. In GateHouse vs. The Times Company GateHouse is accusing the Times that they are aggregating Headlines for their local news service "Your Town" by bypassing GateHouses original news writing completely with just grabbing the headlines and linking to the original article - meanwhile the claim that people never click on the links and just read the headlines on the Your Town website - you know like google news et al does.
Putting links under copyright law would be an interesting feat. It would allow the big news corps to put their stories under copyright and all links to it - theoretically driving the traffic spike up and controlling the content 100%. On the otherhand small blogs who have been linking to these newspaper websites would all of the sudden not be allowed to do that anymore. Now this is where Creative Commons comes into play and the reason the lawsuit - if lost by the Times - would clear up the original issue. If you place the links (or embeds if you think embeds are links) under creative commons - people can link to you again - that would most likely mean a boost of creative commons content because websites want to be linked to. The content and the links have a clear legal status and we just have to figure out that pesky problem of commercialism of a website and the web would have more legal legs in the end.
This will not be the spin you will hear. Since the bigger end of the lawsuit is ironically enough one of the biggest news headline setters in the US they will fight tooth and nail against the lawsuit and will spin it into direction that the freedom of the tubes is at stakes because its exactly these companies who want to benefit from free content and have the advertisers lined up to actually make money of it - compared to those small local journalistic entities or artists for that matter - who never see a dime for actually creating the work. I would love the sleeping Creative Commons Foundations to actually embrace a ruling for putting the whole link business on legal ground as at the moment its a dark shade of grey ruling the land of the clicks and embeds. And while they are at it release an addition to their license that says "Do not use on websites with advertisment" just to make that clear.