12 thoughts on “Giving away the photo store

  1. I think that is one of the dangers with the new media outlook. We see a CC as a way to freely distribute copyrighted material while alowing some things to be done with that material as long as attribution is given.
    Many who are unfamiliar with the CC and the way it works simply see it as “Free” stuff.
    While Kris may not be truly giving his stuff away, he is allowing it for public consumption without fee. So he really is giving it away. It’s all in the semantics of it and how you look at it.

  2. I think that is one of the dangers with the new media outlook. We see a CC as a way to freely distribute copyrighted material while alowing some things to be done with that material as long as attribution is given.
    Many who are unfamiliar with the CC and the way it works simply see it as “Free” stuff.
    While Kris may not be truly giving his stuff away, he is allowing it for public consumption without fee. So he really is giving it away. It’s all in the semantics of it and how you look at it.

  3. Robert,

    Why does blogging inflict flogging?
    I still think a blank post with the comment “In the event that I had entered text for your edification; please insert what I could have done wrong in the following blank spaces … .”
    Would that be considered “pre-texting”?

    Enter reply here;


    i.e. woulda, shoulda, coulda.

  4. Robert,

    Why does blogging inflict flogging?
    I still think a blank post with the comment “In the event that I had entered text for your edification; please insert what I could have done wrong in the following blank spaces … .”
    Would that be considered “pre-texting”?

    Enter reply here;


    i.e. woulda, shoulda, coulda.

  5. @2 There is a difference between “giving away photos” and making them freely available via the CC license. That was the whole point of the article! Ask your buddy Thomas Hawk if he would like to see his photos being republished without being attributed to him somehow? If he just gave them away without any license associated with it, I’m betting his answer is would be “no”
    And Tim, when a guy prides himself on being a shining example of how to blog, I’m going to point out his errors so others don’t make the same silly mistakes.

  6. @2 There is a difference between “giving away photos” and making them freely available via the CC license. That was the whole point of the article! Ask your buddy Thomas Hawk if he would like to see his photos being republished without being attributed to him somehow? If he just gave them away without any license associated with it, I’m betting his answer is would be “no”
    And Tim, when a guy prides himself on being a shining example of how to blog, I’m going to point out his errors so others don’t make the same silly mistakes.

  7. er..um… again with reading problem. He doesn’t “give away” his photos. He shares this via Creative Commons. A major difference from “giving away”. Of course you would have known that had you taken the time to read his whole post.

  8. er..um… again with reading problem. He doesn’t “give away” his photos. He shares this via Creative Commons. A major difference from “giving away”. Of course you would have known that had you taken the time to read his whole post.

Comments are closed.