On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Cary Bass <[email protected]> wrote: > A CC-By license *is* irrevocable. > > By agreeing to the CC-BY license, you are agreeing to make it irrevocable > (see link that Benjamin Chen provided). That does *not* mean > * that you aren't allowed to modify your own images or > * that reusers are obligated to continue to retain your images > > I've heard an argument about the downward reuse (beyond commons), i.e., once > we have an image we're obligated to retain it so that downward images have a > chain, but I'm not at all convinced that we are legally obligated to do > that. Downward reusers can either decide that we demonstrated a free > license at the time they copied from us or they can remove them themselves. > We are in no more obligation to them than we are to those artists that > we're reusing from. > > You have to weigh the consequences of losing reused images versus the > consequences of ignoring courtesy to the creative community. > > In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the > retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the > courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks terrible > for us. > > Cary
Thanks, Cary. Given that the women are identifiable, haven't consented to release, and the photograph was taken in a private place, why won't an admin simply delete the image? Or at least pixellate the faces? I'm sorry if this has been explained already. Sarah _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
