Creative Commons
Some (unknown) person blogged about a certain photoset I took last year during an excursion of OUSSEP. My name and site is mentioned as stated in the Creative Commons license. It is pretty cool that people actually mention the maker of the photo.
Recently I discovered several sites and even a powerpoint presentation using one or more of my photos. They all mention their sources. Is it because of the license or because of the people being kind?
Anyway I’ll stick with this license for all my texts and photos.
mosaik If people are blogging using photos on flickr, then flickr has set up their blogging interfaces so that the appropriate credits are made automatically. Another good reason to use flickr.
I used the photo because of the qualities of the photo itself rather than the terms of the licence. But I think many of us in the blogging world would rather stay on the right side of copyright. I pulled a photo [a rather gorgeous photo too] from a post yesterday because I discovered that it had been 'borrowed' from the artists website without any form of acknowledgement or obvious permission. I know that the artist hangs out on some public forums that frequently feed into the readership of my blog. For my niche blog, the mosaic world is rather small and I don't want to lose the goodwill I have gained by actually going to the trouble to get emailed permission from original artists to use their material. Incidentally, I've never had anyone refuse - mosaic artists tend to be very generous.
But my blog is also a labour of love and I purposefully am not attempting to make it into a profit machine. Whether that makes me more likely to respect copyright law, I don't know!