Stephen Bain wrote:
Some people (especially Flickr users) may well have heard of this story already; an Australian ad campaign for Virgin Mobile Australia has been using photos (mainly CC licenced ones) from Flickr. It's causing some consternation not only because of the somewhat offensive content of some of the ads, but because the people behind the ad campaign didn't ask permission from the photographers - or perhaps more importantly, the subjects - before using the photos.
I just blogged about it if anyone's interested:
http://thoughtsfordeletion.blogspot.com/2007/07/free-culture-clash.html
Very interesting. Sadly, this will move people for non-commercial, while ShareAlike would stop such practises too, as we always recommended.
Now, i wonder what would happen if some of the flickr users changed its image from Cc-by to a more restrictive license. http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasu/289444685/ says it's Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Clearly incompatible with Virgin use. I see no trace that the image ever had another license (Google cache, archive.org...) We complain about flickr's MISSING of license history. Maybe Virgin had lawyers signining documents stating the license they see on it?
damon at teacherjames.com http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/#comment72157600562573779 is trying to make a case against Virgin. This will make a very important law precedent on free licenses, images and multiple countries. This really concerns commons.
When more news appear, please post them here.