It bloody well *is* the photographer's fault. Flickr sets the default licensing of all photographs to 'all rights reserved' when one creates an account. In order to change that licence, one has to make a conscious decision to do so. The details of the Creative Commons licence are laid out in perfectly clear English at http://flickr.com/creativecommons. So why, then, did the photographer publish the photos to Flickr under the CC licence? To be trendy? Using a non-'traditional' copyright licence like CC or GPL without understanding the ramifications of doing so is irresponsible and stupid. The photographer has no right whatsoever to plead ignorance in this case. IANAL, but I suspect that a lawsuit brought against the photographer for making the girl's likeness available for commercial use without first obtaining permission to do so would not be without merit.
Slashdot Mirror
It bloody well *is* the photographer's fault. Flickr sets the default licensing of all photographs to 'all rights reserved' when one creates an account. In order to change that licence, one has to make a conscious decision to do so. The details of the Creative Commons licence are laid out in perfectly clear English at http://flickr.com/creativecommons. So why, then, did the photographer publish the photos to Flickr under the CC licence? To be trendy? Using a non-'traditional' copyright licence like CC or GPL without understanding the ramifications of doing so is irresponsible and stupid. The photographer has no right whatsoever to plead ignorance in this case. IANAL, but I suspect that a lawsuit brought against the photographer for making the girl's likeness available for commercial use without first obtaining permission to do so would not be without merit.