Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public...
by stordoff on Saturday July 16, 2016 @05:09PM
(#12107887)
I can see the other side of it though - (roughly speaking) money changes hands -> definitely a contract, non-monetary licence -> probably a contract. IF they don't use CC-BY-SA images often, it might be cheaper/less risky to just offer a token payment rather than getting their legal team to check the CC licence.
Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public...
by avar on Saturday July 16, 2016 @05:45PM
(#12108002)
Yes it makes perfect sense, not saying it doesn't. Just sharing my experience as a counterpoint to the other people in this thread who are surprised that anyone might ever pay for freely licensed content.
Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public...
by bitJericho on Saturday July 16, 2016 @03:23PM
(#12107548)
Now if you try to sue them they have correspondence and a receipt. Don't underestimate the power given by just paying for something.
I and a friend of mine took a high-res photo of an insect and I uploaded it to my flickr account under a CC-BY-SA license.
I got contacted by some publisher of a textbook from the UK and the conversation went like this:
They ended up giving us a few beer cases worth of money for something they could have gotten for free, because their corporate processes presumably didn't jive with getting freely licensed work from some website.Edit: The photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/avarab/sets/72157611383366435/...