dive into mark

‣ March 5, 2007 ‣

The dogs of Flickr

Other versions: 2, 3, 4, 5, landscape.

All photos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, which means that my posters are also licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike license.

Photo credits:

Eleven comments here (latest comments)

what, no malamutes?

— Eric C. Snowdeal III
I hope Mr. Pilgrim used the Flickr API.

— angelday true
The length of the “Photo credits” section amply demonstrates the problem with the attribution clause in Creative Commons licenses. (Analogous to the historic problem with the BSD advertising clause.)

— mpt
When I saw that poster I expected your name to appear or something as I moused over it.

— Scott
Woo hoo, my goober dog, Birkley, made it twice! Friend of mine just happened to catch him as he was casually scanning the poster. Glad I could help out :) Also had to jump onto Flickr and tag both images with ‘dogsofflickr’ and ‘diveintomark’

— SR4001
Off Topic but I can hardly tell you by email:
I think you have a problem with Spamcop, because email to your published address bounces. Yes I’m new here, but no I’m not in the blacklist. Here’s how the bounce looks:

Return-Path:
X-Original-To: [me]
Delivered-To: [me]
Received: from manganese.sabren.com (manganese.sabren.com [67.19.173.100])
by [my server]
for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:39:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost)
by manganese.sabren.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) id l26MdrG9009788;
Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:39:53 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:39:53 -0500
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Message-Id:
To: [me]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report;
report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=”l26MdrG9009788.1173220793/manganese.sabren.com”
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
X-Length: 3586
X-UID: 1633

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

–l26MdrG9009788.1173220793/manganese.sabren.com

The original message was received at Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:39:52 -0500
from [my server]

—– The following addresses had permanent fatal errors —–
[probably your ID]@spamcop.net
(reason: 550 sorry, no such user here (#5.7.1))
(expanded from: )

—– Transcript of session follows —–
… while talking to mx.spamcop.net.:
>>> DATA
>> RSET

— Anonymous
Except that the actual transcript must have looked like pseudo-HTML to wordpress and got swallowed.

— Anonymous
The length of the “Photo credits” section amply demonstrates the problem with the attribution clause in Creative Commons licenses – mpt

It doesn’t. Firstly, what’s the problem? First-and-a-halfly, why the bunny ears around ‘Photo credits’? Secondly, attribution is what these people want and you want to use their photos and you don’t have to write to each of them to ask. Finally, you think it would be easier, do you, without CC Licensing?

— David Jones
I completely agree that this project would have been impossible with traditionally copyrighted images, for an individual with zero budget and limited resources. That doesn’t mean the situation couldn’t be improved.

The 2.6.20 release of the Linux kernel contains contributions from 741 different developers. And by “2.6.20 release,” I mean “new code that wasn’t previously in the 2.6.19 release.”

Now imagine that every time you upgraded your kernel and rebooted your Linux box, you had to scroll through 741 lines of credits. 741 *additional* lines of credits, cumulatively.

Creative Commons is fine for one-generation remixing. But you quickly hit a wall, either from data degradation, or cumulatively onerous license requirements, or some other damn thing.

Such a missed opportunity. By the time most people even understand the problem, it’ll be too late.

— Mark
There are two ways that Creative Commons is being misused/misunderstood:

(1) Some are using it when they really should just be using traditional copyright, those who spaz when their burned in copyright notice is cropped out, or want linkbacks, or don’t like their work being used by people of different political opinions. These guys should just use traditional copyright and require people to contact them for permission.

(2) Some are using it when they really should just be putting their stuff in the public domain. CC has this counterculture hippy dippy image, but in reality it has enough annoying restrictions that if you really want the world to freely use your images you should just renounce your copyright instead of using CC.

— Mark VII
Lovely project.

— Adam Khan

Respond privately

I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)

firehose ‧ code ‧ planet