Edit: "negligence" means you should have known of the risk. "Recklessness" means you knew of the risk but acted anyway.
Sorry, could not resist.
Gross negligence is often more along the lines of "we are 99.999% sure you are lying, but we can't prove it".
In Wilson v Brett Baron Rolfe (later Lord Cranworth) said he "could see no difference between negligence and gross negligence; that it was the same thing, with the addition of a vituperative epithet."That's the problem, isn't it? Many crimes, for the law to apply, have to be committed knowingly. But if your internal controls are weak, and if cross-checking when billing is discouraged you just overbill on the chance that the customer will pay up. And you don't commit crime, only if you check and bill anyway, then it's crime!
If we are arguing language, the correct words should be "criminogenic environment".
No, "negligence", in law, means you failed to act according to the duty of care you owed, which can include knowing about a risk but failing to act reasonably to mitigate it as much as it can include not knowing about a risk that one reasonably should have known about.
Negligence and recklessness are not mutually exclusive
The poster above you is correct as to the test for negligence in civil causes of action.
The likely cause of this mix-up is that false-licensing touches upon the law of misrepresentation, which contains as a subset, rules for both fraudulent misrepresentation as well as negligent misrepresentation.
Your link discusses the ill-defined nature of the middle ground, indeed if someone is apathetic as to whether the actions they take are negligent, those actions being deliberate, then it appears to fall in the even less well defined middle ground between recklessness and negligence. The link summarises with 3 conditions for recklessness, the first two being:
>As to recklessness, the better rule to apply is that requiring a strict test, i.e., the defendant must (a) actually know the course of conduct he is about to embark upon involves the probability of death or great harm to another, and (b) choose to risk occurrence of harm. (duke.edu link, ibid ) //
It primarily discusses criminal recklessness and only briefly touches on torts, as copyright infringement is, so I'm not really sure how relevant it is.
Perhaps you could comment on this imagined scenario:
A company deliberately includes CC-NC works (for example) in their morgue files and then neglects to check whether those works are then sold or included in the works that they chase up as infringements. Indeed they consider the problem but choose not to investigate whether they might be inadvertently charging for works that they have no rights to charge for, isn't there deliberate negligence there? They chose to avoid doing what the notional reasonable-man would consider to be necessary to avoid copyright infringement? They don't know they're infringing and so their actions aren't reckless??
TL;DR I propose that if you avoid acquiring the knowledge that would make you aware how reckless something were, you continue to be negligent just deliberately so.
(Didn't read your link entirely, sorry).
>"I'm not sure which law school taught you that" (morninj) //
Isn't the point of the link that judges don't even the line between negligence and recklessness correctly and that state laws muddy the line considerably; that "criminal negligence" should be an oxymoron under what the author considers to be proper interpretation of the USC. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, "criminal negligence" is a charge that is currently brought quite properly in various States of the USA.
IANAL just butting in with my tupenneth in the hope of getting educated.
I am not versed in law, so please accept this as a request for clarification, not a debate.
Getty is using the license they got the images with, after all.
It is not like they are suing people for republishing a collection or something that could Getty could have created and have copyright in.
now what I don't know is the legality of attaching a license to a redistribution of a public domain work - technically one can claim recompression is transformative and that you hold a license to the altered work, in which case the origin of the file matters in defining if third parties are infringing (and this is why gpl works better in these cases, you don't get to change the license downstream)
IAMNYL edit: messed up
You can resell public domain works as much as you want, but you can't go around claiming an exclusive right to the image and trying to force other people to pay you to license a right that you don't possess.
One can claim whatever one wants, but I doubt the courts would fall for that.
More common is IANAL, which means "I Am Not A Lawyer".
No, because transformative applies to uses of the work, not the work itself. A recompressed image has the same uses as the original image so there's absolutely no scope for considering it to be transformative.
As far as attaching licenses to public domain works goes, you can do what you like. There are no restrictions. However, you can't claim to have an exclusive license, and you certainly can't claim to own any copyright in the work, because none exists.