- there is a first Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License: you can use the library for your non-profit website (see details on the licensing page) ;
- there is a commercial license for any other website.
One of my photos on Flickr is now on Schmap, a website providing travel guides for some destinations in the world (only Europe, North America and Australasia for now). See here how it looks.
What was interesting for me was the way they did it. I came to know it via an e-mail from Emma Williams (from Schmap) telling me my photo was included. And, at first sight (*), they correctly understand the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0: attribution is on their website, as well as the “cc” logo next to the image. And they link to the the image on Flickr 🙂
In the last post, I told you one of my photo on Flickr was published in an article from Nature Reports Stem Cells. After some discussions with three friends, I decided to write an e-mail to the journal editors basically stating that, although I enjoyed my photo being shown in their journal, they did not comply with one of the two conditions of the CC-by-sa license (the “Share-Alike” part, more details in the copy of my e-mail). I chose this licence for this photo because it is there to give freedom to other people on some material while this freedom stays with the media even if the latter is modified.
The answer quickly came from Matthew Day, database publisher:
From: Matthew Day
To: Jean-Etienne Poirrier
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:55:39 +0200
Subject: RE: Photo license issue
I’m sorry that we have published a derivative of your image without putting the new work under a Creative Commons license. As you adroitly guessed, we cannot publish the derivative work under CC as it contains components from other sources.
I would be willing to discuss with you a way of keeping the image, and your credit, on the NRSC article. However, an additional complexity is that I see that you are posting a PDF of the article on your blog. The cleanest solution for us may be to simply remove the image and PDF from our websites.
If you’d like to discuss this, I could call you tomorrow or Friday if you are free and can email me your contact number.
With best wishes,
Nature Publishing Group
Matthew also removed the image from the website (before my answer). So I removed the PDF of the article (a personal copy but I don’t think I could consider it as a self-archived article) from this blog.
From an initial error, I think the Nature Publishing Group reacted correctly.
I was very pleased to see my first publication in Nature (1), the scientific journal with an impact factor of 26! Well, it’s not really what you can expect (especially if you are one of my two mentors): one of my photos on Flickr, representing a rat eating (or praying?), was chosen to illustrate a summary of UK Academy of Medical Sciences report on animal-human chimeras 🙂
Click on the thumbnail above to see the full screenshot
Here is the article full reference: DeWitt, N. “Animal-human chimeras: Summary of UK Academy of Medical Sciences Report” Nature Reports Stem Cells, published online on August, 2nd, 2007.
Note that I don’t know if they completely comply with the photo license since the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 allows them to re-use the photo and do the modifications, provided they give credit (ok) and distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to the CC-by-sa. They are not clearly stating to others the licence terms of their new work …
(1) As Jan Schoones wrote in his comment, it’s not published in Nature itself but in Nature Reports Stem Cells, a journal published by the same company as Nature but which does not have an impact factor! (Edited on August, 20th)