Monday, January 07, 2008

Links for 01-07-2008


Unknown said...

Dan Heller's post got one thing wrong. There is a potential penalty for violating the CC license. As he correctly stated, someone violating the license would only be libel for the cost of obtaining the license, but the license in question would not be the cost of the CC license (i.e. zero) but the cost of obtaining the license needed to use the photograph in the manner in which is was used. That is, I might give away free a license to use one of my photographs with attribution under the CC, but I might charge $500 for a license to use the same photo without attribution.

Gordon Haff said...

That sounds logical--although I'm not a lawyer and don't really know how it would play out. I'm still not convinced that CC is completely unreasonable to use for photos but both his arguments and his anecdotes have gotten me thinking. (I do agree that I couldn't see anyone using CC under normal conditions for anything related to advertising or marketing.)