On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.com wrote:
A CC-By license *is* irrevocable.
By agreeing to the CC-BY license, you are agreeing to make it irrevocable (see link that Benjamin Chen provided). That does *not* mean
- that you aren't allowed to modify your own images or
- that reusers are obligated to continue to retain your images
I've heard an argument about the downward reuse (beyond commons), i.e., once we have an image we're obligated to retain it so that downward images have a chain, but I'm not at all convinced that we are legally obligated to do that. Downward reusers can either decide that we demonstrated a free license at the time they copied from us or they can remove them themselves. We are in no more obligation to them than we are to those artists that we're reusing from.
You have to weigh the consequences of losing reused images versus the consequences of ignoring courtesy to the creative community.
In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks terrible for us.
Cary
Thanks, Cary. Given that the women are identifiable, haven't consented to release, and the photograph was taken in a private place, why won't an admin simply delete the image? Or at least pixellate the faces?
I'm sorry if this has been explained already.
Sarah