4 ms·

Hilariously, I'm pretty sure that this article is violating the license! This person's photos are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licen

by autarch 11y ago

Hilariously, I'm pretty sure that this article is violating the license! This person's photos are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/). Among its terms are "ou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." Maybe I missed it but I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made. Simply crediting the copyright owner is not sufficient to satisfy the terms of the license. Also, with CC < 4.0 you need to include the work's title. The Trump site is doing exactly the same thing, not linking to the license

ghaff 11y ago
I use (and attribute) CC photographs all the time and I have to say that I wasn't even aware of a couple of those requirements. Sadly, I think terms like these, as well as the optional non-commercial variant, are serious issues with CC. Attribution can be hard to carry along with a photograph consistently but at least the idea of a photo credit is pretty deeply ingrained in professional publishing circles if not the Web more broadly. I expect most of the other requirements and limitations are rarely followed to the letter.
- thephyber 11y ago
  They aren't "serious issues" with CC. They are the legal terms under which you are allowed/licensed the use of the copyrighted content. If you don't know the license and the requirements of the license, how you can pretend to fulfill them? You are just waiting for a lawsuit and "ignorance is no excuse" in the eyes of the law.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Among its terms are "[Y]ou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. > I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made. It doesn't say you must indicate whether changes were made. It says you must indicate if changes were made, which leaves the case of "no changes" ambiguous.
- ghaff 11y ago
  And what are "changes"? Does a minor crop or sharpening constitute a change? (Or, more precisely, a remix, transform, or build upon.) Leaving aside whether they are free licenses and whether that matters, my issue with the CC variants is that both NoDerivs and (especially) Non-Commercial are nearly impossible to define in the general case and therefore cannot be safely relied upon as a grant of permission if you're being legally conservative.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    I think No-Derivs is only acceptable for interviews or speeches that are a statement of the author's views (allowing derivatives would not make sense). And No-Commercial is just nonsense and people shouldn't use it.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      Unfortunately, NC is one of those things that is intuitively appealing to a lot of people--"I'm happy to give my stuff away for free but I don't want someone else to make money off of it". But it breaks down with essentially any non-trivial use. Yes, using a photo off flickr as a screensaver on my home computer is clearly non-commercial but, really, who cares if that usage is properly licensed or not. Pretty much any substantive use could be argued to be commercial in some way, shape, or form.
raphman_ 11y ago
Given that Gage Skidmore owns all rights to the photos, and that Priceonomics apparently had contacted him for this article, it seems quite plausible that Gage allowed the photos to be used outside the CC license. Furthermore, one might argue that showing photos in an article about them is covered by Fair Use principles. In this case no reference to license or source would be needed.

by autarch 11y ago

ghaff 11y ago

I use (and attribute) CC photographs all the time and I have to say that I wasn't even aware of a couple of those requirements. Sadly, I think terms like these, as well as the optional non-commercial variant, are serious issues with CC. Attribution can be hard to carry along with a photograph consistently but at least the idea of a photo credit is pretty deeply ingrained in professional publishing circles if not the Web more broadly. I expect most of the other requirements and limitations are rarely followed to the letter.

thephyber 11y ago
They aren't "serious issues" with CC. They are the legal terms under which you are allowed/licensed the use of the copyrighted content. If you don't know the license and the requirements of the license, how you can pretend to fulfill them? You are just waiting for a lawsuit and "ignorance is no excuse" in the eyes of the law.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> Among its terms are "[Y]ou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. > I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made. It doesn't say you must indicate whether changes were made. It says you must indicate if changes were made, which leaves the case of "no changes" ambiguous.

ghaff 11y ago
And what are "changes"? Does a minor crop or sharpening constitute a change? (Or, more precisely, a remix, transform, or build upon.) Leaving aside whether they are free licenses and whether that matters, my issue with the CC variants is that both NoDerivs and (especially) Non-Commercial are nearly impossible to define in the general case and therefore cannot be safely relied upon as a grant of permission if you're being legally conservative.
- cyphar 11y ago
  I think No-Derivs is only acceptable for interviews or speeches that are a statement of the author's views (allowing derivatives would not make sense). And No-Commercial is just nonsense and people shouldn't use it.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Unfortunately, NC is one of those things that is intuitively appealing to a lot of people--"I'm happy to give my stuff away for free but I don't want someone else to make money off of it". But it breaks down with essentially any non-trivial use. Yes, using a photo off flickr as a screensaver on my home computer is clearly non-commercial but, really, who cares if that usage is properly licensed or not. Pretty much any substantive use could be argued to be commercial in some way, shape, or form.

raphman_ 11y ago

Given that Gage Skidmore owns all rights to the photos, and that Priceonomics apparently had contacted him for this article, it seems quite plausible that Gage allowed the photos to be used outside the CC license. Furthermore, one might argue that showing photos in an article about them is covered by Fair Use principles. In this case no reference to license or source would be needed.