I told him it’s fine for ow, by the way, although I need to send him an updated version with a credit embedded, glad for the reminder.

*Nota bene: If you read some imaginary malice or harassment into this note, just delete it. I forbid Laughing Squid from contacting me regarding any matters not related to my hosting account.

any comments?

http://www.photo.net.ph/blogalicious/2007/10/01/major-daily-violates-photographers-copyright-and-intellectual-property/

Michael said: “It still seems improper to pay for using a picture that is clearly intended for non-commercial uses. Payment almost seems like a slap in the face to CC licensing. As if the license is just a suggestion”

IANAL: The Non-commercial Creative Commons clause doesn’t mean that you don’t want any commercial use ever no matter what, all it means is that non-commercial is one of the conditions of *free* use that doesn’t require asking. Put another way, a NC CC license just effectively means that for C (commercial) use, the default copyright applies, e.g. the author reserves rights etc. Thus those seeking C use still need to contact the author, who may request payment, or freely give permission etc.

Come to think of it, it still seems improper to pay for using a picture that is clearly intended for non-commercial uses. Payment almost seems like a slap in the face to CC licensing. As if the license is just a suggestion…

Then publish a page listing all such outstanding invoices, along with how overdue they are, and total charges accrued.

On thought I have had, because a number of my CC-by-nc Flickr photos have also been stolen by various commercial (mostly web) publications (e.g. a certain V.W.), is to consider putting in a “default price for commercial use without asking” on your Flickr profile page: http://flickr.com/people/laughingsquid/ which you can then cite/quote on your invoices, since these are all folks using your photos for commercial use without asking.

I would send them an invoice.

I gotta agree with paul… start with an invoice, and I would send it today. Don’t give them the option of simply taking it down, and note in it about them already being in breach of contract for the non-attribution bit.

Scott, I’d agree you should invoice them, and start invoicing everybody who does this. And please name and shame the culprits more.

Ga-rosss.

Not only did they not ask me for a photo, they told me that the story would be small. Front fucking page. Fuckers.

If that had happened it would still be shitty that they didn’t give you photo credit, but at least more understandable.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/

Is Creative Commons really that hard to comprehend? A simple Google search would provide all the answers anyone could possibly need, and the CC site even features explanations in comic book form (doubtless a boon for the illiterate copy-and-paste “journalists” who staff the Examiner).

In the old days, it was usually provided as part of a press kit with prints that said they could be used for promotional purposes.

The problem is media organzations don’t understand creative commons and that they can’t just publish any photo they find on the web.

SF Weekly did something similar with a photo I took of Josh Wolf a few weeks ago. They did take it down after I contacted them though they didn’t offer to pay me for using it in the first place.

If you haven’t seen it a bit of a primer on protecting your images with formalized copyrights on my blog