Huh: Creative Commons and logical consequences.

I should start a blog labeled "Huh:" and discuss things such as this:

copyrightandtechnology.com/2014/12/07/fl...icensing-automation/

Words....Just words.......

Which part of it is huh? All he was talking about was the abuse of Creative Communism by large entities. Though he did make it sound as if you have no real protection of your work either way, which we know is untrue, since your work is Copyrighted the moment you shoot it, and that the DMCA applies to protections of your creation on the interbutz. But the whole thing of Yahoo making it where you do not know, or choose to not know that they are using CC to get you to voluntarily give up actions of infringement by agreeing when uploading content. This is why I do not upload my content to any free image hosting site, because nothing is ever totally free on here.
Hell I left Smugmug over some of its antics when it came down to being able to print customer images unless you opted out, without your knowledge. That and their price hikes. And I have left Zen as well over hiking the price when they stated that my price was fixed for as long as I had the account. You either keep your word, or you do not. I was waiting for them to start doing a SM as well when it came to printing at supposed costs for those who requested prints. I personally believe that the only way to keep some company on the net from abusing your images is to not use any of them, and make your own site, and pay for the hosting. Otherwise you will always have someone changing their ToS, or agreement to favor them over you, whether you are paying, or not.

Joves wrote: Which part of it is huh? All he was talking about was the abuse of Creative Communism by large entities. Though he did make it sound as if you have no real protection of your work either way, which we know is untrue, since your work is Copyrighted the moment you shoot it, and that the DMCA applies to protections of your creation on the interbutz. But the whole thing of Yahoo making it where you do not know, or choose to not know that they are using CC to get you to voluntarily give up actions of infringement by agreeing when uploading content. This is why I do not upload my content to any free image hosting site, because nothing is ever totally free on here.

What you call abuse I call taking advantage of terms and conditions. Hardly abuse of CC.

If you don't upload to flickr then I will share that one can clearly indicate licensing terms when one uploads; it's not hard. The default (checking just now) is "None", or no license at all. All rights reserved. That implies that anyone that allows a CC license has explicitly done so.

The "huh" part is that this is the logical unintended consequence of that choice. Possibly/probably without understanding it. I find it humorous that those that jump on the CC bandwagon because "sharing is good" are now being taken advantage of.

I don't think Flickr/Yahoo makes it so you do not know what you're signing up for; I think people don't think. And you don't give up anything if you don't allow CC licensing. You're conflating. The upload terms allow the servers to serve your images; they have to have permission to do so.

As I've said elsewhere, the only way to keep your images from being abused is to not put them online.

Last word: PT is free