On 8/25/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/07, James Duncan Davidson james@duncandavidson.com wrote:
It's pretty hard to snag a photo from a book. I've tracked down many violations of my CC-licensed photographs to people who "borrowed" them from Wikipedia. WIthout any indication that they are subject to any kind of license, well, people don't know. And that's what they've told me.
These people are (copyright) idiots. Without some knowledge of the license status you have no right to use an image you found and didn't create. Full stop.
Oh, minor detail, this is true that whenever I publish anything at all with images and/or text, I'm required to know and verify 100% the license of every image, meaning if I don't know the copyright I CAN'T use it.
This makes me wonder, now that you bring it up, exactly how someone is publishing anything thinking it is public domain, because you can't publish anything that is public domain without establishing proof that it's a public domain image. When I took a reader in and it had a Wikipedia public domain image in it, I had to include links to the image (and I knew I had to in advance), and the printer held off until he had personally contacted the photographer.
Maybe it is less strict on the web--after all, many people are their own website publishers, but print publications usually have an additional level in there, still.
There's no printer default for unknown copyright. You either own it, or you have permission or it isn't printable.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
KP