This blog is published under a creative commons license (specifically, the non-commercial use, with attribution license) – chosen to let folks rip/mix/burn whatever they found useful. I really believe that type of sharing is important.
Regardless, I was a bit surprised to find this obvious homage to my blog design (well, to K2 and my tweaks), which closely mimics my blog’s current appearance – right down to recycling each and every one many of my blog banner images (which have been removed since I posted this).
My initial reaction was a quick “dude, that’s so not cool. use the design, but at least come up with your own banner images!” But, what’s being done is completely within the bounds of the CC license – attribution is being given, and it’s a non-commerical endeavor. So, I decided to let it slide. It’s understandable – the license I use allows it, and I even provide a full colophon listing the various off-the-shelf bits that twiddle to make up this blog.
So, while the CC license is a Very Good Thing™ for fostering reuse, it can also be a bit of a mixed blessing. It’s really weird – I’m totally fine with people doing pretty much whatever they want with the text, as long as they’re clear about not blatantly ripping me off. But seeing the images on some else’s blog just felt strange, and not in a good way.
What does that say about images vs. text? What does that say about my relationship with the banner images? They are all taken by myself, at various stages in life (one from the beach we got married on, one from the hospital room Evan was born in, etc…), at various locations in my travels (Hawaii from NMC2005, more photos of San Francisco than are warranted on a blog by a Calgarian, etc…). Each one means something special to me. To see them on someone else’s blog, where they are essentially stripped of that meaning and are being used simply because they’re pretty pictures, just doesn’t feel right.
This blog is published under a creative commons license (specifically, the non-commercial use, with attribution license) – chosen to let folks rip/mix/burn whatever they found useful. I really believe that type of sharing is important.
Regardless, I was a bit surprised to find this obvious homage to my blog design (well, to K2 and my tweaks), which closely mimics my blog’s current appearance – right down to recycling each and every one many of my blog banner images (which have been removed since I posted this).
My initial reaction was a quick “dude, that’s so not cool. use the design, but at least come up with your own banner images!” But, what’s being done is completely within the bounds of the CC license – attribution is being given, and it’s a non-commerical endeavor. So, I decided to let it slide. It’s understandable – the license I use allows it, and I even provide a full colophon listing the various off-the-shelf bits that twiddle to make up this blog.
So, while the CC license is a Very Good Thing™ for fostering reuse, it can also be a bit of a mixed blessing. It’s really weird – I’m totally fine with people doing pretty much whatever they want with the text, as long as they’re clear about not blatantly ripping me off. But seeing the images on some else’s blog just felt strange, and not in a good way.
What does that say about images vs. text? What does that say about my relationship with the banner images? They are all taken by myself, at various stages in life (one from the beach we got married on, one from the hospital room Evan was born in, etc…), at various locations in my travels (Hawaii from NMC2005, more photos of San Francisco than are warranted on a blog by a Calgarian, etc…). Each one means something special to me. To see them on someone else’s blog, where they are essentially stripped of that meaning and are being used simply because they’re pretty pictures, just doesn’t feel right.
Related
When my wife went to art school, she learned a phrase “don’t borrow it, steal it.”
If you take an idea from someone and you’re “not making it your own” then you are simply borrowing the idea.
If you are “making it your own” than you are stealing it.
I know it sounds odd, but it’s always a good policy for reuse of content — if you’re going to take someone elses ideas or content then riff off of it, improvise, add value, make it your own– don’t just borrow it.
On the flip side, I really do understand if a person doesn’t have the technical know how to change something — then all you can do is borrow it and cite, cite, cite.
Brian, I don’t consider the Google ads to be violating the commercial aspect of the license. It would take a LOT of traffic to generate more than a few pennies via Adsense. In my brief experiments with it, I never actually received a dime (they don’t cut a cheque until you hit $100, which can take quite a while)
As for the weblogs@ubc blog with Adsense installed – I suppose if it’s not explicitly verboten, then it’ll have to ride. Although, it may fall under some form of misconduct if they keep the cash themselves rather than signing it over to UBC, I suppose. Kinda like renting space on an institutional server?
Tomas – sorry for any confusion or lacking clarity. K2 is totally not my own theme – it’s done by Michael at BinaryBonsai. I was referring to the non-stock tweaks.
I’m not sure what/how you found insulting about the post. Nothing I wrote was derogatory, nor insulting.
I really hadn’t given much thought to the issue of images and licensing – emails aside. It’s not something that I ever thought people would be re-using from my blog, which I always assumed was primarily about the text.
The creative commons license does apply to the banner images, since I didn’t specify a different one for them, so you are of course free to continue using them.
I was really just trying to comment on the reaction I had to seeing them on another blog out of context. You aren’t the first person to borrow the images, and there will likely be others as well. Again, the license allows the reuse. I am just surprised that people would take what I consider to be personal snapshots, and use them to customize their own online homes.
I am deleting all of your image from my server.
I thought it was really ok, since I even notify you through email.
By the way the design in my blog is from k2 theme. I dont know if that was really yours. And if it is, tell me so I can delete it also and switch to other theme.
Being a subject of this blog (or a derivative subject), and the way you write the language of its content, are truly insulting in my part.
You also mentioned that “you let it slide”. If you could have been very specific on puting notation on your website, people could have been extra careful on “paying an obvious homepage” to your website.
Does using Google-ads all over the place break the spirit of “non-commercial”? I don’t mean that so much specifically in this instance (though the copyright mark in that dude’s weblog title rubs me the wrong way, all things considered) — I just see it all the time and don’t quite know how to take it. I can understand if people use the ads to defray costs of bandwidth — though there’s a user of the Wblogs@UBC service doing this and I have been torn about how to respond. I’ve never told anyone what they can do with their blog before, and am in no hurry to start butting in…
mwahahahaaa. welcome to communism. ok not really, but i’m drunk.
At work? Dude, if that’s communism, sign me up… 😉
Helge – I wasn’t asking him to remove the images. They’re released under the same license, because I hadn’t set a separate one for them. I’m not going to retroactively apply a different license to the images, so he’s free to continue using them. I wrote the post to document my reaction to it – which surprised the heck out of me. Why would I be completely fine with the text of my blog being all over the place, but flinch when I see my images elsewhere? It’s illogical and contrary to what I thought I’d do. So I documented it. That’s all I was meaning to do. It’s an oversimplification to say that once something’s been published with a license that there can’t be any attachment or reaction to how it’s used.
And the PHP for the theme I use is freely available – I didn’t create the theme myself. It’s the K2 theme by BinaryBonsai. I did tweak it more than a little, and I was just commenting that some of my tweaks were duplicated as well.
I do take it as a compliment that the images were copied. I was really surprised at my reaction to it, though. It’s weird that I might have a closer, more personal relationship with the handful of images that cycle through the banner of this blog, than the 200,000+ words I’ve written. That doesn’t make sense…
Guys just one question: Why do you need to discuss this in detail in the public. I mean usually if something feels not right, you directly ask the person in question. Always a bad idea to try to solve conflicts in the public.
just my 2 cents.
Anyway how can one copy your PHP-files D’Arcy? Is your Webserver not properly secured? To copy the images is well… not finest style, but… in which way does this touch you? It’s the best compliment you can get to get copied, right? 🙂 Keep relaxed guys. the web has enough space for anyone out there.
helge
Err. (pay extra homage).
Brian, with regards to your question of “non-commercial”
Here is what the license says:
“… primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation… ”
Who in the right mind will think that my blog is intented for or directed toward COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGE and PRIVATE MONETARY. And if happens to be the case, one needs to prove that it is indeed my PRIMARY INTENTION for USING the PICTURES
Tomas — I thought I made clear in my post I was not specifically accusing you of breaching the license. I was asking D’Arcy’s opinion on something I’ve often wondered about, for my own reasons that I subsequently stated. This post seemed a logical opening to ask that question. I’ve always wondered why people put Google ads on their sites if they don’t hope to make money off of them — though I do consider the possibility that some may need that revenue to maintain their sites.
I noted you are not the only person to take CC stuff and incorporate Google ads. And it doesn’t seem to be a big deal to most people. I don’t make any legal assessment, though I noticed you don’t use CC yourself (favoring traditional copyright, as is your right). Hence my reference to ‘breaking the spirit’ of the license.
I was not really saying that you accused me brian. I was only replying to your question of “non-commercial” spirit.
[…] I earned $000000000000000.08 from my website today, using adsense. Yesterday was slightly higher it was a dime higher to be precise. I tried to look at my sitemap report to see who is referring to my blog and which search engine keywords generate some stray visitors. Surprise, suprise. Mr. D’Arcy wrote a post entitled “On the downside of freely sharing stuff”. He referred to my site as an ” obvious homage to my (his) blog design ownside, eh? – “(Downside of Freely Sharing ) Stuff”:http://www.darcynorman.net/2005/12/16/on-the-downside-of-freely-sharing-stuff” […]