Link to cdevers' Flickr post - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/ and the specific Creative Comm

Link to cdevers' Flickr post - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/ and the specific Creative Commons license he chose (through Flickr) to apply to the image - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en_GB http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en_GB Fairly explicit about attribution, no derivative works, and no commercial use; all three appear to have been violated here by Gap or (as georgemcbay points out) an external freelancer toying around. Edit: I tend to assume ignorance over malice, so assuming it was a freelancer let's assume they didn't realise their derivative work would ever end up on a Gap shirt. They may have played with the image 18 months ago, stored it somewhere, shared it somewhere, forgotten or mis-remembered its origins, submitted it on an unlikely spec, and 'oh shit, that's right, I shouldn't have done that, and of all the designs I've ever submitted that's the one that gets through!'. Said freelancer won't be accepted by Gap again. Gap still needs to do something to mitigate the brand impact. Choose whichever is the cheapest of pulling the line, publicly apologising, or offering a token compensation amount (not linked to sales or anything that could be construed as actual licensing of the image) subject to details not being revealed.