another view on the stacey/gamma flap 12.28.2005, 12:42 PM
posted by bob stein
For an alternative view of Lisa's earlier post ... i wonder if Gamma's submission of Adam Stacey's image with the "Adam Stacey/Gamma" attribution doesn't show the strength of the Creative Commons concept. As i see it, Stacey published his image without any restrictions beyond attribution. Gamma, a well-respected photo agency started distributing the image attributed to Stacey. Isn't this exactly what the CC license was supposed to enable -- the free-flow of information on the net. perhaps Stacey chose the wrong license and he didn't mean for his work to be distributed by a for-profit company. If so, that is a reminder to all of us to be careful about which Creative Commons license we choose. One thing i'm not clear on is whether Gamma referenced the CC license. They are supposed to do that and if they didn't they should have.
k.g. schneider on December 29, 2005 11:51 PM:
doing this on a treo in a santa fe motel, hence cryptic, but isn't a prize intended to recognize creative endeavor?
bob stein on December 30, 2005 12:13 PM:
as i understand it submitting photos to competitions is one of the things photo agencies do for the photographers whose work they distribute. Gamma wasn't taking trying to take authorship of the photo or pretend that the creative effort was theirs.