On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good
example of how Commons
does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is that Flickr
doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable ...
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but
allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences
as irrevocable.
I'm asking this because I've seen a couple of cases on the Commons in
the last few months where people have asked that personal images be
deleted (usually involving body parts that they uploaded when kids),
and being told no, too late, you can't change your mind. This seems
cruel and unreasonable, and so I'm wondering what the legal basis for
it is.
Sarah