I have used a fair few photos from iNat users in journal papers that I’ve published. I always, no matter the license, message the user about this use. For cases where the photo is all rights reserved, it’s because I’m asking for permission for its use. But for all other cases, even though I have no obligation to have to inform them, I still do so because I feel that people generally feel a sense of gratification when they know that a photo they took is being used somewhere like a book or journal paper.
This is a point that I think several people are hinting at in this thread, and that is perhaps being missed/glossed over by others. It’s not necessarily about asking for someone’s permission to use a CC photo when that’s not a necessary practice due to the definition of what CC is, but it’s about sharing the experience with that user and making them aware that they’ve helped/contributed to your work. In all cases I have done this, the people I’ve contacted have been grateful and pleased to know their photo was ‘of use’. And in turn, when other users have contacted me and said they’re using my photos in their work, that similarly makes me feel good.
I should hope so. If I gift you something, and then a year later, I go back to you and say, “actually, on second thought I’d rather sell it than gift it,” you’re going to be upset at the very least.
Please understand, when the thread was first posted there was confusion, mainly because of how poor the Audubon books credits are done, along with a user saying they thought something was used without permission. Things were investigated, turns out, yeah, the licenses are probably correct.
This doesn’t change the facts that the credits are bad credits, and it still is nice for a company to give you a heads up if they are using your photo. Things like common courtesy are not things that are, or should be, legislated, because there is too much risk for abuse when it comes to morality in the legal system - but also, the community for nerdy field guides isn’t THAT BIG and its nice to contact people and say ‘hey, I’m using your photo in this book! Look for it!’
EDIT: And legalities or not, those are awful credits pages. Just a list of people with no indication of what photos are theirs? nah man, spend a few extra pennies and note that information.
Like, this isn’t unusual. I reached out to a few people who have had things in published works previously, and previously, they have been informed of what was being used and where it was being used in the book, and were even thrown a few courtesy copies - which again, isn’t required but certainly is nice.
i don’t think it became that way. to me, it seems more like this thread started off that way.
whatever problems there were in the other thread – perceived or real – those problems seemed to have already been getting resolved through discussion over there, as you would expect from a productive discussion.
i’m not sure this current thread was entirely necessary. i suppose if someone actually learned something from this thread, then it was useful. but did anyone actually learn anything new / useful?
did you change your photo license settings as a result of this reminder? did you remind anyone else resulting in them changing their photo license settings?
I did check my photo license settings, yes. I did not need to change my settings because they are what I want. I didn’t talk to anyone else about this.
I think maybe people took the statement below to mean you want people to ask you for permission for any use of CC work (rather than only ask if they want to do something not covered in the selected CC license).
I did not from this thread, but from a former thread about this topic. So I do appreciate these kind of reminders, especially as I am not really well informed on this topic myself.
I do think this thread was well meant and might have been helpful to some people. The emerging circling discussion of whether or not someone has to or should ask for permission surprised me a bit. I think the explanation about the mentioned copyright status was pretty clear and precise from the start. The takeaway is, if you expect to get contacted in case someone using your photos, this copyright setting might not be the right one for you.
For me, that’s the issue. If I see one of my CC BY-NC photos in a publication that is being sold, and I was never contacted and did not give permission for that use, that’s a violation.
that “circling discussion” emerges from the original post here, which starts with an accusation that people don’t understand how the CC licenses work in relation to permission. if you all read the other thread carefully, and if you all read the posts here, you’ll see that this accusation is totally unfounded.
if you start with an unfounded accusation, mix it with a tone that smacks of something akin to mansplaining, and then continue to double down on the accusation even while others try to explain that it’s unfounded, you can see why a thread like this one might not lead anywhere productive.
did this thread actually teach you anything? did you actually change your photo licensing because of what you learned in this thread?
besides making accusations, what does this thread really say that improves anyone’s ability to choose an appropriate photo license? you might appreciate a reminder to look at your photo licensing, and that’s fine. the reminder can be done simply by suggesting folks look at their photo licenses – without the accusations, without the tone.
i will say there are important licensing concepts that actually are occasionally misunderstood, and it’s a shame that the original post here doesn’t touch on any of those at all (although they are covered in a useful way in the other thread).
As I said, not from this thread but from another one before. If I had not read that one, then yes this one would have given me new info.
It’s really interesting that I get a totally different vibe from this thread and intention then some other seem to do. I don’t feel the problem with the tone.
…maybe it will help trying not to assume the worst in people…
this is advice that needs to be applied to the original post. as i noted before, this whole thread could have been much more productive without the unfounded accusations and the tone right from the start.
if you don’t see why the original post might suffer from those problems, then i think that’s just more evidence that this thread won’t go anywhere productive.
really, it should probably just be closed for discussion, just like most other unproductive threads end up.
I have absolutely learned from your concise, clear explanation, @barbetsmith, and I thank you. I basically understood my license setting when I chose it but in no way fully.
(I will now assume my photos are, in fact, not terrible! The licensure means I need not be troubled! In fact my photos are used far and wide as glorious examples of nature! But like, only non-commercially.)