Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Links for 1-02-2008


Unknown said...

I can't agree about the Lane Hartwell thing. What good does it do to have a link to Lane's website, if all it does is get others to use her photographs for free by putting links at the end of their own works? As far as Flickr goes, perhaps they need to be more explicit about the licenses on the site. Certainly there have been complaints from artists about the reverse problem, namely putting a photo under a CC license and then finding out that they won't get paid.

Sure, if the use was really fair use, then there is no problem. The answer if not doing away with copyright, the answer is in creating technologies that allow for clearing the rights in a scalable manner.

Gordon Haff said...

As I've written over on my CNET Blog Network blog, I'm somewhat conflicted about this particular case. I certainly don't buy the whole "eh, it's only a photo" argument. OTOH, this didn't seem like the ideal case to pull out the big guns--although I don't think it was fair use. On still the other tentacle, attribution is just good practice even if it has no *legal* significance.

As for flickr... I suppose they could always have more detailed explanations but seems pretty clear to me: The biggest Creative Commons problem I see is that the whole commercial/noncommercial distinction is vague and essentially broken.