- Thomas Hawk's Digital Connection: Photophlow Rocks - Looks interesting although I don't participate in the "social media" side of Flickr much.
- Dan Heller's Photography Business Blog: Gaming the Creative Commons for Profit - Dan's had several thought provoking posts on Creative Commons recently. He argues that it doesn't work for photographs. I don't 100% agree--at least, yet.
- A VC: Rhapsody: An Apology Of Sorts - "So I guess I owe Rhapsody an apology here. It's not entirely their fault. They are not luddites. They are in bed with luddites."
- Irving Wladawsky-Berger: Towards the Knowledge Economy - Irving discuses some of the characteristics of cloud computing.
- WeSmirch - This is hilarious. A celeb gossip version of Techmeme. Who knew that the Techmeme concept could be adapted to even more trivial, self-absorbed, and largely inaccurate news?
- Put Buyers First? What a Concept - New York Times - Great story about Amazon. You can't buy that sort of good publicity.
- Negroponte on Intel's $100 laptop pullout - Jan. 4, 2008 - There's at least some fault on both sides here.
- Cool Tool: Motion Mountain - This looks very, well, cool.
- The Best Leaders of 2007 - BusinessWeek - With HP's Mark Hurd at #1. One could argue that HP is now too focused on execution at the expense of everything else but Mark certainly fixed a lot of things that were out of kilter.
- Q&A: Red Hat CEO believes Delta past isn't a liability | Underexposed - CNET News.com - Another good interview with Whitehurst.
- Stereoscopy for your digital SLR | Underexposed - CNET News.com - This looks very cool.
- 10 Useful Plugins for Windows Live Writer | Sarah In Tampa | Channel 10 - Some of these may be useful.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Links for 01-07-2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
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.
Brian,
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.)
Post a Comment