Tuesday, November 20, 2007

News from the wide world of Web 2.0:

"From: rmnadel

Subject: Your Wi-Fi photo

Hi peretzpup,

Here's a personal note from ryan nadel:

I'd like to use your wi-fi photos to illustrate an article I posted on NowPublic.com. Please follow the link to allow the photos to be used with the article and to read it. Give me a shout at rnadel(at)nowpublic(dot)com if you have any questions.

please click on this link - where you can approve or reject its use:


NowPublic is a news sharing community that uses stories, photos, & videos from sources like you.

If you would like to learn more about this request, and the context in which your photo might be used, click on this link:


If you do give your permission, your photo will always remain your property, and whatever license you have specified will follow its use on NowPublic.com

If you have any concerns about this, please contact our Quality Assurance Coordinator at quality@nowpublic.com"


Subject: Re: Your Wi-Fi photo

Hi Ryan,

Well, I've given you permission to use my photo, but I have to say, given that it was already licensed in a way allowing you to use it, having to jump through the hoops of making an account at a site & agreeing to their terms of use was kind of annoying. You might want to draw their attention to that.


"From: rmnadel

Subject: Re: Your Wi-Fi photo

Hi Eugene,

Thanks for including your photo with my article. The reason the import process is designed as is, is in order to ensure that the contributor maintain ownership over their work . So even though one has it set to CC we want the owner of the photo to be credited and to remain the owner.


"To: rmnadel

Subject: Re: Your Wi-Fi photo

Funny, to me it looks more like a way to boost your contributor count. Seems to me you could satisfy the attribution clause more adequately by just linking back to the flickr account I actually use. Honestly, anybody using an Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, or Attribution-NoDerivs license has already given permission to you to use their work as you're using it, obviously you have the facilities to determine which license the pictures are under, requiring people to fill out a form & agree to your terms of use to permit you to do something they've already explicitly allowed seems pretty screwed up, honestly. If you're genuinely concerned about using people's work without their permission even when they've already given permission, I would think a notification that you're using it with an opt out method would be more appropriate, would waste less time, wouldn't require agreeing to anything."

Going to walk the pup.

No comments: