Flickr

[Zona]

Can photos posted on Flickr under the "Creative Commons" Atribution License be used by web designers on a site as long as a photo credit is provided?

That's how I understand the license and I'm interested if others have the same interpretation.

 

[weblord]

web designers do make money on designs i think it's beyond the usage border of creative commons and violates #2 even if they give credit.

creative commons means:
1. Attribution means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.

2. Noncommercial means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only.

3. No Derivative Works means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

4. Share Alike means:
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

the thing that arouses my curiosity is that why do they need to do these? if they are web designers, they can obviously know what's hot or not in the art/photos industry and can very well produce their very own photos not unless they have posted their posted on flickr?

Can photos posted on Flickr under the "Creative Commons" Atribution License be used by web designers on a site as long as a photo credit is provided?

 

[Zona]

Thanks weblord.

Specific to the link I provided, it appears that the top group of photos (about 9,700,000) fall under "Attribution License" which reads "Attribution means: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit." I understand that these can be used on a website as long as credit is provide.

It appears the other groups of photos below these are more limited in how they can be used. Some can only be used in non-commercial ways (dollar sign with a line through), some can only be used as is (no derivatives), etc.

 

[SeanPreston]

I must say i never knew that... rep added mate

thanks
sean


UPDATE: sadly i couldnt give you rep, I must have already give it to ya, sorry

web designers do make money on designs i think it's beyond the usage border of creative commons and violates #2 even if they give credit.

creative commons means:
1. Attribution means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.

2. Noncommercial means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only.

3. No Derivative Works means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

4. Share Alike means:
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

the thing that arouses my curiosity is that why do they need to do these? if they are web designers, they can obviously know what's hot or not in the art/photos industry and can very well produce their very own photos not unless they have posted their posted on flickr?

 

[Marck]

If it's just under attribution, yeah ! you can do whatever you want with it so long as you give credit.

 

[useless]

i dont think flickr would be nice for that ...