Journalism, attribution and Creative Commons

Attribution and Creative Commons

The Daily Mail posted a story on their website about my friend Andy Stanford-Clark, and used a crop from one of my photos to illustrate it. As it happens, I would have been perfectly happy for them to use it (and even to crop it) if they’d asked for permission. At the time I post this, they are not following the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence and they are also not linking back to my Flickr page per the Flickr terms and conditions.

Thanks to Nick for bringing this to my attention, and for those who have told me that they’ve posted comments (currently not through moderation) or sent emails. We’ll see what happens.

I’ve posted about my approach to CC licensing images before. In this case, it’s arguably more of a concern as it’s a national newspaper displaying what would appear to be significant ignorance about the morality of using user-created content.

Beyond all of this… if you want to learn more about Andy’s tweeting house, he was featured on the BBC News yesterday – it’s a nice piece, check it out.

15 thoughts on “Journalism, attribution and Creative Commons

  1. One minor point – flickr only require you to link back to the photo page if you leach the image from their servers.
    Given DM are hosting the image themselves, that is one condition they aren’t actually breaching.

    Still, 4 wrongs don’t make a right 😉


  2. Sadly the traditional press’ disregard for picture copyright is something people in the Urban Exploring community have regularly run across. Steal the picture, crop out any watermarks, and then use it to illustrate some crappily written piece about explorers being thrill seekers who “break in” to places (and hence law breakers who don’t deserve the protection of copyright law). Of course the irony of who is the one actually doing something wrong often takes several strongly worded letters for them to admit to.

    Reproduce their content without permission though and it’s an all together different attitude!


  3. Thanks Nick – you’re quite right – edited my post to reflect that.

    Andy – d’oh – I think I *may* just have reproduced some of their content by taking a screenshot. Wonder what they will do about that…. :-/


    1. In this instance the outcome was payment. I have heard that the Mail have become far more arrogant / aggressive in ignoring such attempts to recoup costs though.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s