I'm guessing Jason is utilizing/exploiting (you pick) the fact that Cory's piece is licensed under a Creative Commons license - and can be reproduced with attri

I'm guessing Jason is utilizing/exploiting (you pick) the fact that Cory's piece is licensed under a Creative Commons license - and can be reproduced with attribution. Two points: 1) The attribution is made, but the link is broken 2) The original work is licensed under CC-Non Commercial. One could argue that this site, which is a vanity project of Mahalo is thus commercial and would fall outside of the CC-NC license. But it's pretty common for companies to do this - Gawker end up using peoples CC-NC photos all the time and they are clearly a commercial company. This shit just kinda happens all the time. There is also general ambiguity around whether CC attribution needs to point to a URL or not. (The fuzziness of both points is an argument why Creative Commons licensing hasn't been a successful as it could have been - although I remain a massive proponent of it, and release as much as I can under it, but I digress) So while I have my own views on Jason I think it's trick to be too critical of this particular incident.