Did I Blog Without Permission or Do You Not Understand Creative Commons

October 3, 2008

by — Posted in Personal Writing, Political, Technology

Picture from here.

Looking at my access logs on the site I noticed a referral from this page.  At the top of the page it stated this:

Blogged without permission to: http://creeva.com/2008/08/08/i-cant-link-to-your-web-site-man-your-retarded/.

Now my first instinct was “What the Hell”, I then checked and verified this came up under a creative commons search and made a screenshot.

Now under creative commons that applicable (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs) (I searched to see what was allowed to do to the image after this came up) it states:

You are free:

Under the following conditions:

  • Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
    What does “Attribute this work” mean?
    The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.

  • Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
  • No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

I did copy (well I linked to the photo on Flickr) and I distributed the work because it was embedded in a blog post.

The conditions:

Attribution – I followed the norm for creative commons licensed Flickr images which is to link to enclosing page where the picture is from.   No other conditions were specified by the creator, so I took the industry norm for such usage.

Noncommercial – Though someday I would like to get paid, my blog is a non-commercial work and I would testify under oath and in court that my blog has never netted a single penny into my bank account, into my pocket, and in any tangible meaningful way.

No derivative work – when speaking of the image I did not alter, transform, or build upon the image in any way.

Using this image like I did I was well within my legal rights.  I left this comment on the page:

You know you stated that this was blogged without permission to my site on the page http://creeva.com/2008/08/08/i-cant-link-to-your-web-site-man-your-retarded/

The problem with this is that you released your photo under creative commons.  For all my posts I only seach for flickr photos licensed via creative commons, just so I can use images legally.

I clearly underneath the photo linked back to this page which is attribution – I didn’t obfuscate, nor did I claim it was my original image.  If anything it was to help drive traffic back to your site since I didn’t want attribution given to me any way shape or form.

Now I don’t mind the fact that you state it’s blogged without permission, but this comes down to the fact that you licensed your photo under creative commons originally, and you don’t seem to understand the rights you’ve given up by this.  I’m not using this commercially, so I am within my right.

Please see this flickr search:

Search: Kitty Reindeer | Flickr – Photo Sharing!

No Description

and you can verify that this image is listed under creative commons use – or see this screenshot http://flickr.com/photos/creeva/2909390861/

Under more in depth searches – you are not allowing commercial use of this photograph, which I am not doing.   You are also not allowing anyone to modify, adapt, or build upon – which I also am not doing.

Also though Flickr allows you to remove a creative commons license legally once something is released under creative commons it’s eternally released and irrevocable.

While my first instinct was to remove this image I’m letting it stand because of the license you chose regardless of your understanding of the license.

If the creator had contacted me in any way shape or form this may have been a different issue and I may changed the image (at least on this site I don’t know if I could catch everywhere I crosspost to).   Now however since I am a firm and hard believed in public domain and creative commons rights for creators, it’s become a matter of principle.  If someone doesn’t understand what creative commons is, they shouldn’t use it otherwise they will loose rights that they thought they had.  I did not publish this in a book and made no commerical profits off htis image.  I followed the license as it was written and intended.   If the creator didn’t understand those rights, well that’s another issue.

Leave a Reply