The revolution can only occur if those interested in creating and sharing open content keep doing it… and already (mainly in music circles) we are seeing those walls break down. I know I’ve gotten a bit more exposure through a few CC related activities, and even if it means helping out a non-profit with some publication, it’s nice to be able to do so.

Bottom line — the Creative Commons still rocks. Flickr deserves a thumbs up for jumping on the CC bandwagon fairly early on, well before some very similar clones even existed.

Another Frequent problem in the Flickrverse is folks believe that the Creative Commons is giving up their copyright on the photo — quite the contrary. The Creative Commons is really a miracle because it is made possible because of Copyright, and as we know from the Open Source world, Copyright is what allows us to choose our licensing modes.

I think only that by repeatedly pounding the message in will the media finally learn to respect that while digital media isn’t free for the taking, they can easily come to a happy consensus and take advantage of what content is there under some rather permissive terms.

Finally, one should be careful when quoting “Thomas Hawk” (pseudonym) as a defender of public rights and a bringer of goodness. He created a very rough and blatant knockoff of Flickr.com, which lacks originality and draws an audience largely from his complaining about Flickr.com’s own service on their public forums in the most ostentatious and one-sided way possible. It’s a very sad way to both create and market a company. If anyone has been reading Flickr Central or the official forums for a year or so, they’ll likely be aquainted by his antics.

Zoomr’s alleged bend towards commercialism (which has not yet been realized) is likely that of a profit center — exploiting a lucrative market — and not the way to encourage sharing in truly open communities. This is the case with many stock photography sites that pay only minor royalties to photographers while bringing in large amounts of money.

I would like to see the Creative Commons succeed in the same way that the GPL has — allowing free exchange of information, when desired. Muddying the waters with profit motive does not help the situation.

I’m calling him John Doe.

I’m not trying to be a jerk. Every trial I’ve ever seen has technically been a “he said/ she said,” but 12 objective jurors have always found the subjectivity to hold one of those sides responsible or guilty.

I have at least 3 ex Nerve Media employees who have told me that using the internet as a source for free stock photography—because they weren’t given any budget for photographs—was MANDATED from the very top. I have e-mails showing that this practice was also used by Babble, that they were aware it was wrong, and that whenever caught they told the same lies and made the same excuses.

Rufus Griscom might want to call the kid Chuck, but that doesn’t mean it’s his name.

I have a young child whose pictures I post on Flickr, and I’ve worked in PR. So I certainly understand both sides here, but I don’t presume to be judge and jury. I have no doubt that Babble’s PR people are doing their best to minimize how this looks. I also have no doubt that up against them are angry parents, which are probably the most defensive sort of people there are. One side says A; the other side says B–objectively, that is a he said/she said.

I don’t know what your plans are to pursue this further, but I’ll be interested to see the conclusion of the story, if there is one.

this is a very thoughtful, respectful piece. thank you. you’ve really given your readers a lot to think about.

I can’t resist, however, correcting one notion. you suggest the babble flap has devolved into a he said/she said. that’s simply not the case. we have documented at least four other instances of babble’s improper use of a flickr user’s photographs, the resulting confrontation, and the same excuses came from babble each time. we have further evidence of at least a dozen other flickr photographs that were used without the owner’s knowledge or permission. we have documented some of that evidence here:

http://babblesteals.blogspot.com

although I am just so sick of all this mess I haven’t gotten around to put everything people have e-mailed me up there.

just because a CEO puts spin on a very bad PR situation does not make it a simple he said/she said situation. there is evidence here.