[cc-community] Contradictory meanings of "non-commercial"?

Lloyd cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Sat Feb 9 04:14:06 EST 2008


Fred Benenson wrote:
> 
> It was unfortunate that the magazine claimed they confused CC with the 
> public domain, but there's the chance that this is merely a convenient 
> excuse (the event culprit was an intern).
> 

Its always an intern. Whenever some company gets caught misusing 
copyright its always an intern. Fox gets caught its an intern, Wired 
gets caught its an intern. Perhaps if these companies, instead of 
running their office on the cheap by using underpaid kids paid someone 
to do the job properly, they wouldn't get caught so often sourcing 
images on the cheap.

Whether it was an intern or not makes no difference its institutional 
misuse by these companies. They know that they damn well need 
permission, yet they would have us believe that after a couple of 
hundred years of copyright law, they have no procedures in place to 
determine that the content they use has the appropriate permissions.

If they are sourcing images from flickr they could put in place a bit of 
  code to check license against the flickr URL. That's not hard to do.




More information about the cc-community mailing list