Mr Curry however did not prevail on his accusations of the magazine putting his 15 year old daughter at risk, it would appear the Judge was of the opinion that Christina Curry didn't come to any harm, so where is the damage? Personally I think that is a little narrow minded when on considers that if the information published in the magazine (Address, Adress of school, how she gets to school etc.) was to be published on the internet, it wouldn't just be people in Holland that know these details. So whilst the fact that the Curry family live in the US, does lend some protection, if that information becomes public that could cause some major problems. With Regards to the Creative Commons License, the Judge ruled that the Magazine should have looked further into the license, but as Mr Curry was essentially giving the photos away for free on the internet, they had very little commercial value. So she did not in fact award damages for the photos already posted, although the company has had to remove them from their website. If the company infringes on this license again they will be fined $1200 per photo. To me this seems outrageous, most celebrity magazines would happily pay more than that for juicy pics anyway. Having said that, another Judge may be far less leniant on them anyway. The main point is that the Creative Commons License has been shown to be legally upholdable, and sets a legal precedent. Adam Curry may not have got financial damages awarded to him, but frankly I don't think it was ever about the money.

Shifty_ben