

Wired.com Goes Creative Commons: 50 Great Images That Are Now Yours - FrojoS
http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2011/11/creative-commons/

======
andymangold
"50 Images that are now YOURS" is a bit misleading. The point of the Creative
Commons License is that the images still belong to Wired, but now others are
allowed to use them. This will only contribute to the "Creative Commons means
it's free for me to use however/wherever I want" mindset.

~~~
FrojoS
I agree. Usually, on HN the title shouldn't be changed but here I should have
made an exception.

------
spking
I don't know if I'd call many of these "great". Mediocre might be a better
description.

~~~
stfu
Apparently the pictures are also not allowed to be used within a non-
commercial context.

Taking into consideration that most of them cover public figures I don't see
any use of them except for a journalistic context. And unless someone needs
them in poster format it should be covered by the same rights that allow
Google to show preview images in their image search.

So I'd say overall pretty much useless and just a PR story for Wired Mag.

~~~
notatoad
I think you got that backwards. You are allowed to use the images in a non
commercial or editorial context. You can't use them in a commercial context. I
thought they made that pretty clear.

~~~
rmc
The images are licenced BY-NC, which means they can't be used commerically. So
you probably couldn't include them, at all, in your commerical magazine, say/

~~~
notatoad
That was my understanding of cc-nc as well, but the linked announcement
specifically says they're okay to use in an editorial context in any
publication

------
andrenotgiant
This is such a generous SEO Scheme by Wired.com

"Photos must be properly attributed to the photographer and Wired.com, and we
ask for a link back to the original story where the photo first appeared."

------
sk5t
Some of these images are interesting, but I'd be very hard-pressed to call any
great. Journalistic composition style / centered subjects at average distance
and normal focal length, as-found lighting, some missed focus, several are
crying out for a caption to find meaning (e.g., Ballmer).

------
s00pcan
At the very least these could replace some photos on wikipedia pages.

~~~
dmnd
Actually, this isn't possible as the images are CC-NC[1] and Wikipedia has a
policy that forbids images with a non-commercial clause in their licence[2].

[1]: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0>

[2]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-
commercial_use_onl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-
commercial_use_only_images)

------
tsunamifury
Wired.com isnt known for its photojournalism.

------
wattjustin
But, but, Trent Reznor! But seriously, I'd rather pay for better photos. Their
intentions are in the right place though.

------
thankswired
Not included: <http://i.imgur.com/3rDPm.jpg>

~~~
stfu
Maybe Greenwald has a similar version in his repository and is willing to
share it.

