Comments on: Photo Licensing and the Creative Commons http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog/archives/2007/12/09/photo-licensing-and-the-creative-commons/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:57:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Flickr Stats » Jeremy Johnstone Blog http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog/archives/2007/12/09/photo-licensing-and-the-creative-commons/#comment-68 Flickr Stats » Jeremy Johnstone Blog Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:06:06 +0000 http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog/archives/2007/12/09/photo-licensing-and-the-creative-commons/#comment-68 [...] learning where my photos are being used (when they do the right thing and link back to me that is, discussed in a previous blog post) and what types of things people are looking for when they arrive on my [...] […] learning where my photos are being used (when they do the right thing and link back to me that is, discussed in a previous blog post) and what types of things people are looking for when they arrive on my […]

]]> By: felix http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog/archives/2007/12/09/photo-licensing-and-the-creative-commons/#comment-69 felix Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:11:05 +0000 http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog/archives/2007/12/09/photo-licensing-and-the-creative-commons/#comment-69 Thanks for your post Jeremy. Licensing under Creative Commons affords you sturdy legal protections for your work (in relation to copying, the making of derivatives, and the making of money from your work) which if breached, can be pursued as you would a standard copyright claim. Under the CC licences, users of your work are required to afford you reasonable attribution, as noted in s4(b), by providing: (i) the name of the original author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied...; (ii) the title of the work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that licensor specifies to be associated with the work...; and (iv) ...in the case of an adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the work in the adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author")... Best practice is therefore to link back to the Flickr page by using an embedded image, although, in having the option of downloading files, the inclusion of a URL may be deemed to be reasonable. In terms of having your name on material you do not endorse, the CC licences allow you to request removal of the credit. See the restrictions set out in section 4a of the current licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode. Certainly, you are not alone in considering (and unfortunately being aggrieved by) how people go on to use your CC-licensed images. In fact, it is important that photographers acknowledge the range of uses allowed by the particular licence they adopt; there's been more than one occasion where creators have clearly licensed more broadly than they had wished to, and then turn to the organisation with accusations. This is a point of education which CC is seeking to pursue, as Lessig points out in the wake of the Virgin case, in his blog post at http://lessig.org/blog/2007/11/from_the_whyagcfromcravathisgr.html: "As CEO of Creative Commons, I apologize for any trouble that confusion about our licenses might have created. We thought the meaning was clear. We work hard to make this as clear as we can. We will work harder." To this end, the issue of noncommercial use will be considered in depth in early 2008 by the international CC community, which may prompt changes to licences and/or explanations of the term. As it currently stands, if the photos placed on a site with advertising are the key reason someone is drawn to the site, this is thought to constitute a commercial use. Take a look at the NC guidelines as they currently stand: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines. Personally, I believe CC licences are essential to free culture. It is important that everyone is up-to-date with their operation though, so that we can share in an enlightened manner. Thanks for your post Jeremy. Licensing under Creative Commons affords you sturdy legal protections for your work (in relation to copying, the making of derivatives, and the making of money from your work) which if breached, can be pursued as you would a standard copyright claim.

Under the CC licences, users of your work are required to afford you reasonable attribution, as noted in s4(b), by providing:
(i) the name of the original author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied…;
(ii) the title of the work if supplied;
(iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that licensor specifies to be associated with the work…; and
(iv) …in the case of an adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the work in the adaptation (e.g., “French translation of the Work by Original Author”)…

Best practice is therefore to link back to the Flickr page by using an embedded image, although, in having the option of downloading files, the inclusion of a URL may be deemed to be reasonable.

In terms of having your name on material you do not endorse, the CC licences allow you to request removal of the credit. See the restrictions set out in section 4a of the current licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode.

Certainly, you are not alone in considering (and unfortunately being aggrieved by) how people go on to use your CC-licensed images. In fact, it is important that photographers acknowledge the range of uses allowed by the particular licence they adopt; there’s been more than one occasion where creators have clearly licensed more broadly than they had wished to, and then turn to the organisation with accusations. This is a point of education which CC is seeking to pursue, as Lessig points out in the wake of the Virgin case, in his blog post at http://lessig.org/blog/2007/11/from_the_whyagcfromcravathisgr.html:

“As CEO of Creative Commons, I apologize for any trouble that confusion about our licenses might have created. We thought the meaning was clear. We work hard to make this as clear as we can. We will work harder.”

To this end, the issue of noncommercial use will be considered in depth in early 2008 by the international CC community, which may prompt changes to licences and/or explanations of the term. As it currently stands, if the photos placed on a site with advertising are the key reason someone is drawn to the site, this is thought to constitute a commercial use. Take a look at the NC guidelines as they currently stand: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines.

Personally, I believe CC licences are essential to free culture. It is important that everyone is up-to-date with their operation though, so that we can share in an enlightened manner.

]]>