4 ms·

> Is that really bad? Yes, it's quite mean-spirited. Basically others are free to use the thing that the licenser made unless they're savvy enough to think of

> Is that really bad? Yes, it's quite mean-spirited. Basically others are free to use the thing that the licenser made unless they're savvy enough to think of a way to make money from it, in which case the licenser gets pissy and says "nope". For no reason other than "I didn't think of that".

paranoidrobot 7y ago
> in which case the licenser gets pissy and says "nope". For no reason other than "I didn't think of that". This is certainly not the intent that I had when choosing that license for the photos I published. I saw what Virgin Mobile Australia did[1][2] by pulling CC-BY attributed photos from Flickr and that cemented my position on not wanting my photos to be used in advertising. [1] https://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ https://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ [2] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo-20070921-gdr5wg.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teen...
jshevek 7y ago
>For no reason other than "I didn't think of that". Of course there are other possible reasons. Many people have a range of relevant ideological positions on the profit motive, and when and where it should be applied.