So, I have heard about this story in a couple of places, but all the coverage is lacking.
I know, for instance, The Java Posse used to make this mistake a lot and say “This is covered under *the* Creative Commons License” and not *A* Creative Commons License. The thing is, it sounds a lot to me like Flickr users who granted, say Share Alike or By-SA licenses to their photos are upset they didn’t say “Non Commercial.”
This has been one of the weaknesses of “CC Licensing” since the beginning, IMHO. The combinations make it hard for the average person to understand. The GFDL (like Wikipedia) is very clear. The many combinations of CC licenses you can selecte makes CC licensing confusing to the average shutterbug.
For insance. I say this photo:
(Congrats to Les and Fras BTW)
Is CC-By-SA. If Virgin wants to use it on a Billboard, they are welcome to, as long as my name is on the billboard and they don’t sue the Farkers who mutilate it. Something in my gut tells me these angry Flickr users simply didn’t kow what they were agreeing to when they tagged their photos with a License.
Do you know more about this story? Please tell!