On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM,
<wiki-lists(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA
license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume
that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not
if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the
copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two
parties you simple do not know.
In many cases it's very obvious. If an image credit says "Sage
Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC
license), it's clear that it's not being used properly. If the image
credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on
Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear.
Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking
the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed. But there are
a lot of times when you can know.
The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my
pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license
link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the
flickr photopage, the information is available you just have to go look
for it a bit. Does that count in your world?
A whole mass of reusers are using some blogging or CMS pluggin or theme
(wordpress, drupal, etc) on their site few of which bother to attribute
let alone link to relevant licenses. If you feel the need to bitch at
anyone bitch at those developers.