[Commons-l] Making damn sure image attribution is very clear

[K P]

On 8/25/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/07, James Duncan Davidson <james at 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