[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