flower cat anus
flower cat anus. just 14.99!
i just found out that this photo got super mega attention on digg last year after some guy re-posted it on his crazy things blog. Even though his post featuring my photo got lots of diggs and was featured on the front page, he didn't credit me properly. Plus his site serves ads. So he violated two parts of my attribution/non commercial CC license (naughty naughty faux pas 2.0). but mostly i'm sad that i got dugg but i didn't even know at the time! sniff.
check it:
digg.com/odd_stuff/Absolute_Worst_Product_Package_Ever_PIC
This whole thing does get me thinking though. Creative Commons is meant to be a reworking of intellectual property rights to encourage a culture of sharing and remixing. IP law and CC is still based in the assumption though that IP is valued in terms of money (free/not free). But what about this case, where it's not about money but attention in terms of driving hits to my flickr stream and increasing the exposure of my work. I don't mind if people use my photos without paying me, but I do mind if people use my photos in a way that takes away traffic from my site and takes it to theirs, as was what happened in this case. There is also a difference between someone using my photo in a news story, and someone just straight up reposting my photo because its funny. The former is a development or repurposing of my photo, whereas the latter is just copying or reproducing the exact same thing I'm doing by posting the photo. It's competition, and I'm competing with myself!
I want a new CC license that takes this into account.... I realise its pretty subtle and will be hard to firm up but I think this is going to increasingly become an issue.
flower cat anus
flower cat anus. just 14.99!
i just found out that this photo got super mega attention on digg last year after some guy re-posted it on his crazy things blog. Even though his post featuring my photo got lots of diggs and was featured on the front page, he didn't credit me properly. Plus his site serves ads. So he violated two parts of my attribution/non commercial CC license (naughty naughty faux pas 2.0). but mostly i'm sad that i got dugg but i didn't even know at the time! sniff.
check it:
digg.com/odd_stuff/Absolute_Worst_Product_Package_Ever_PIC
This whole thing does get me thinking though. Creative Commons is meant to be a reworking of intellectual property rights to encourage a culture of sharing and remixing. IP law and CC is still based in the assumption though that IP is valued in terms of money (free/not free). But what about this case, where it's not about money but attention in terms of driving hits to my flickr stream and increasing the exposure of my work. I don't mind if people use my photos without paying me, but I do mind if people use my photos in a way that takes away traffic from my site and takes it to theirs, as was what happened in this case. There is also a difference between someone using my photo in a news story, and someone just straight up reposting my photo because its funny. The former is a development or repurposing of my photo, whereas the latter is just copying or reproducing the exact same thing I'm doing by posting the photo. It's competition, and I'm competing with myself!
I want a new CC license that takes this into account.... I realise its pretty subtle and will be hard to firm up but I think this is going to increasingly become an issue.