that's all well and good
i appreciate all the complex legal issues
but at the end of the day, if you think they're shite, why give them something for free?
i was asked by a charity if they could use one of my images, i said yes, no probs
but if zoo or nuts asked, they could go fuck themselves
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:17,
archived)
but at the end of the day, if you think they're shite, why give them something for free?
i was asked by a charity if they could use one of my images, i said yes, no probs
but if zoo or nuts asked, they could go fuck themselves
pfft.
to address mictoboy & mofaha's comments above and below, though:
i suppose the comparison i have is to free software. whereas my silly pictures aren't comparable in terms of usefulness to, say an operating system or a web server, the producers of these things have released them under licences which allow anyone, even organisations they are completely opposed to, to use them, without the need to ask permission. i admire the spirit of that kind of thing.
(and that's why the work i can legitimately release under creative commons doesn't have the 'non-commercial use' restriction)
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:31,
archived)
i suppose the comparison i have is to free software. whereas my silly pictures aren't comparable in terms of usefulness to, say an operating system or a web server, the producers of these things have released them under licences which allow anyone, even organisations they are completely opposed to, to use them, without the need to ask permission. i admire the spirit of that kind of thing.
(and that's why the work i can legitimately release under creative commons doesn't have the 'non-commercial use' restriction)