Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
Both of those articles contain people who specified their pictures could be used under the Creative Commons license, which includes for commercial use.
|
Just to clarify--and because I'm a BIG proponent of Creative Commons and I'd hate for it to get a bad name...
There are six different Creative Commons licenses that content producers can choose from. ALL CC licenses require attribution to the original content provider. They all allow people to share and distribute your work. Beyond those basic permissions, you can slice-and-dice exactly what else you're giving your permission to many different ways, choosing to allow or deny commercial use and the production of derivative works, and to require or not require "share-alikeness" (i.e. whether derivative works must be released under the same CC license).
Certainly the attribution requirement was violated here. It's a matter of law, not license, whether the subjects of the photograph retain rights to the use of their image.