“uploading user-generated content to the Internet shouldn’t require granting what amounts to a compulsory royalty-free license”

John Villasenor opines on the Cariou case as well as a current fair use case which asks to what extent is the infringer liable (i.e.- is the infringer a contributory infringer) for all consequent infringements.

In a rare move, Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering and public policy at UCLA and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, gives ample weight to the fact that producers of creative content should be able to post their work in the public realm without having to worry about infringement.

“…as a content creator [an artist] should be able to display his work in the 21st century equivalent of a town square while also retaining the associated intellectual property rights. Put another way, uploading user-generated content to the Internet shouldn’t require granting what amounts to a compulsory royalty-free license for anyone else who might want to use it.”

Well said. I’m sure the Birkenstock-wearing free culture folk will balk at this and the fact that Villasenor’s article appeared on Forbes, the epitome of corporate greed and property rights. Regardless, Villasenor reiterates an argument we at Clancco make quite often, content is not and — with limited fair use exceptions — should not be free, unless the creator decides as such.

Tags: Art Law, buzzfeed, cariou, fair use, forbes, infringement, intellectual property, photography, prince, the commons, town square, villasenor