Comments on: Canadian MP’s copyright troubles http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11861 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:23:46 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11861/comment-page-1#comment-136454 Reader's Write Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:31:32 +0000 #comment-136454 given the wording of the story: "The staffer, according to Wise, had allegedly downloaded the image from www.flickr.com, a popular photo-sharing website. Photographs on this site are copyright-protected under a creative-commons license, which Wise said will be accepted in a court of law. " the impression of your "informant" is understandable. I had the same impression thats why i asked about the new license model "NP" etc. it was either the fault of the original article writer that he might not know that flickr doesn't automaticly mean its CC licensed, or he quoted Mr Wise incorrectly. No blame on your or your "informant" :-) given the wording of the story:
“The staffer, according to Wise, had allegedly downloaded the image from http://www.flickr.com, a popular photo-sharing website.

Photographs on this site are copyright-protected under a creative-commons license, which Wise said will be accepted in a court of law. ”

the impression of your “informant” is understandable.
I had the same impression thats why i asked about the new license model “NP” etc.
it was either the fault of the original article writer that he might not know that flickr doesn’t automaticly mean its CC licensed, or he quoted Mr Wise incorrectly.

No blame on your or your “informant” :-)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11861/comment-page-1#comment-136453 Reader's Write Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:05:14 +0000 #comment-136453 Hi: Thanks for pointing this out. I learned about it in an email from a normally reliable reader who says he saw the pic was copyrighted and 'assumed' it was CC. I should have checked myself (I usually do) but because I know the person who sent the email, I didn't. My mistake and I've corrected the story. Cheers! And thanks ... Hi: Thanks for pointing this out. I learned about it in an email from a normally reliable reader who says he saw the pic was copyrighted and ‘assumed’ it was CC.

I should have checked myself (I usually do) but because I know the person who sent the email, I didn’t.

My mistake and I’ve corrected the story.

Cheers! And thanks …

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11861/comment-page-1#comment-136452 Reader's Write Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:56:51 +0000 #comment-136452 where do you got the information that the picture in question was CC stuff? At least the pictures from this flickr user http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwise/ are clearly labeled "© All rights reserved." No CC license what so ever at least on them where do you got the information that the picture in question was CC stuff?

At least the pictures from this flickr user http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwise/
are clearly labeled
“© All rights reserved.”

No CC license what so ever at least on them

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11861/comment-page-1#comment-136449 Reader's Write Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:12:45 +0000 #comment-136449 "Wise said he would also have thought twice about letting the Liberals or New Democrats use his photograph for political purposes. “I do like to choose my clients,” he said. " I haven't read the alleged CC license under which he allegedly put the pictures on flickr, but where did I miss the part that if you license your photos for certain CC usages that there are clauses available for NP (Non Political) or NFPIDL (Not For Politicians I Don't Like)? AFAIK the creative commons don't have such terms available. So if he really has licensed stuff under CC he might better read what he does there. "choosing clients" isn't exactly what those CC's give. ____ just another CC licensing photographer “Wise said he would also have thought twice about letting the Liberals or New Democrats use his photograph for political purposes.

“I do like to choose my clients,” he said. ”

I haven’t read the alleged CC license under which he allegedly put the pictures on flickr, but where did I miss the part that if you license your photos for certain CC usages that there are clauses available for NP (Non Political) or NFPIDL (Not For Politicians I Don’t Like)?

AFAIK the creative commons don’t have such terms available.

So if he really has licensed stuff under CC he might better read what he does there. “choosing clients” isn’t exactly what those CC’s give.

____
just another CC licensing photographer

]]>