nathanm Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 After hearing the arguments against intellectual property I decided to re-tag my whole public Flickr account photos with a Creative Commons license. Of course, both CC and copyright mean nothing in practice, it's about as meaningful as a prayer or a birthday wish. If you can look at the pixels you can copy the pixels. Publishing digital data means you've lost a good deal of control and I'm OK with that. But it doesn't mean that an emotional attachment to one's work does not exist in the brain. Even if I wouldn't advocate persecution against someone who used my non-IP IP in a way that was vulgar, it still would bother me. Not that this usage is all that vulgar, it's still in an NPR article involving Obama and power plants so it does make me itch a bit, but thems the breaks. http://news.wpr.org/post/presidents-energy-plan-could-affect-wisconsin-coal-power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribuck Posted June 29, 2013 Share Posted June 29, 2013 Congratulations, Nathan, on re-licensing! I hope that in time you will find yourself able to un-clench your teeth in relation to this. Regarding the use of your photo by NPR: it just shows that it's a great photo. It doesn't show that you support the article it's used with. At least they did credit the photo, although a clickable hyperlink would have been nicer. Incidentally, I see that you have also re-licensed your photo of Lori Earley's artwork "Drained". Was this an oversight, or do you consider that you are licensing the value that you added by photographing the work? Great photos, by the way. I see a strong environmental theme throughout, and a really sound command of the technical and artistic aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted June 29, 2013 Share Posted June 29, 2013 Nice photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathanm Posted June 29, 2013 Author Share Posted June 29, 2013 Regarding the use of your photo by NPR: it just shows that it's a great photo. It doesn't show that you support the article it's used with. At least they did credit the photo, although a clickable hyperlink would have been nicer. Thanks! I know, it is nice and the NPR person commented on the flickr page about its use so it's all cool. I just think the context is wincingly funny. Incidentally, I see that you have also re-licensed your photo of Lori Earley's artwork "Drained". Was this an oversight, or do you consider that you are licensing the value that you added by photographing the work? I never gave it that much thought, probably part of the default permission I had before. I believe I only changed any of my own proper photos which I had set from All Rights Reserved to CC. I just think of the print photo as a snapshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribuck Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 ... I just think the context is wincingly funny ... Indeed! But it's not surprising. You have chosen the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license, so you are allowing your work to be copied by govt-controlled and partially govt-funded nonprofits such as NPR, but not by productive enterprises. So the context in which your work is used is likely to be skewed in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts