On 02/03/15 17:26, Peter Reed wrote:
> Sorry for my lack of understanding here, but the fact the rights holder didn't choose the commercial license, presumably consciously, authorises KK to put the image on a mug and sell it, regardless of what it depicts? Shouldn't the absence of the commercial clause authorise use for commercial purposes?
>
> I've seen Suits - Harvey Specter would be all over this ;-)
>
I agree. It's totally legit. You can choose who you want to reuse you
work by writing your own licence with causes.
But a question, to avoid this could you just use a "Share Alike
licence" like BY-SA
or the Free Art licence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Art_License
That seems unclear to me and I couldn't find any reference on the links.
nice one
Mick
|