Creative commons usage can be vague and tricky on its own, but it gets even more fishy.
I was searching compfight for an image to use with a puff rant on predictions. This flickr image, licensed CC BY, that came up on a creative commons search result was the kind I would like to use, until I read the caption:
This is the picture by Mark Weaver, I copy it here to only use for my blog posting; the the original here: www.flickr.com/photos/markweaver/5300867059/
That link is to the original image which is a New York Times image All Rights Reserved.
Now to me, copying a copyrighted image and then setting the copy to be creative commons licensed does not really make it so,
Maybe this is an attempt to do a flickr version of No Copyright Intended. As much as I am an advocate of open licensing/sharing, I can’t really condone the wholesale copying and slapping a CC license on it. That seems toi be breaking the meaning of creative commons, in that the creator gets to assign the rights.
Is it me or does it smell fishy? It just muddies the water IMHO.