Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Cc <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>]

On 01/11/2013 01:45, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 31/10/13 11:58 AM, Cc wrote:
> > The problem arises as the idiots over on wikipedia now seem
> > to think that they can delete the attribution and original
> > title, and still be in compliance with the license given
> > that the stuff will remain in the deletion history.
>
> Do you have an example of that which doesn't involve attribution being
> abused to advertise products on Wikipedia as described in the talk page
> you link to?
>
> > They are already cloning out watermarks
>
> Wikipedia is not a free promotional site for photographers. Removing
> adware from images is an improvement.


They have two options not hosting the work, or complying with the 
license terms.


> There certainly is abuse happening here, but it looks more like
> Wikipedia are defending against it than perpetrating it...

Again they have two options not hosting the work, or complying with the 
license terms.

Who determines whether a title or attribution is promotional or not? 
Where are the license terms that say that these terms are void if the 
re-users decides that they don't like the attribution name?

Could creationwiki decide not to attribute to a photographer that goes 
by the name of ChildOfSatan? How about anti-Semitic groups refusing to 
attribute to someone called Cohen?