Our friend EaBo thought he’d try to get some extra mileage out of Ogo’s immigration mailer, so he posted it over at RedState.
But in the process, he committed a serious netiquette faux pas: instead of copying the images I posted of the mailer and hosting them himself, he decided he’d just “borrow” some BMG bandwidth by using the link to our server.
Well, EaBo, that is stealing. We pay for our bandwidth, as you should know. And stealing bandwidth like that also sets you up for embarrassing pranks by bloggers.
Here’s the link to EaBo’s RedState post. I don’t know what it will look like by the time you see it, so I helpfully took some screen shots of what it looks like right now.
Oh, and I couldn’t help noticing the dearth of comments on that post. The rightyroots don’t seem exactly energized about this race. I also liked the one comment on EaBo’s previous RedState post (also posted at BMG) in which he expresses outrage over the Mass. Dems’ use of a photo of Ogo.
On their images, eh, I’m not very bothered that that is the picture they used.
…eabo should thank you for being so kind in your choice of prank pics. I myself would not have been so, uh…tactful.
<
p>
BTW…bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
…this might be a fun one, and it’s civil IMO.
<
p>
http://files.blog-ci…
Swap out the pictures. Just keep the names the same when swapping them out. This could be entertaining!
But a chart of Republicans supporting SCHIP would be a good one….
Perhaps this would have been better handled via private email.
What’s the point of blogging if you can’t have a little fun now and then?
Whenever someone steals bandwidth, this is almost the standard and expected response. David is upholding Blogospheric Tradition.
<
p>
Apparently, at BMG, the editors care deeply about our cultural traditions.
<
p>
I suppose that’s true but this whole post strikes me as unseemly. But whatever, it’s their blog.
to read most of your comments, Mr. W, this whole blog strikes you as unseemly! So par for the course, I’d say. 🙂
This whole blog doesn’t strike me as unseemly. I disagree with a lot written here, but I wouldn’t say it’s unseemly.
<
p>
But putting together a post about some sort of internet “faux pas” when it could have been handled privately does.
But, at the same time, the slow devolution of the blog into a mere campaign tool, good mostly for cheerleading and nenner neeners, is unfortunate.
bandwidth theft is a well-known internet offense, and the standard punishment is public shaming.
<
p>
On your larger point, AFAIK BMG is the only MA-based site (including the Globe and other MSM outlets) that went to the trouble of actually explaining in detail what the SCHIP bill does with respect to proof of identity and immigration, so that readers could make up their own minds instead of relying on either campaign’s talking points. Or of posting, in its entirety, Jim Ogonowski’s otherwise-very-hard-to-find “plan” for Iraq. I’d hardly call that “cheerleading” or “neener neener.”
Took down pictures.
If you decide to repost images of the mailer that you obtain from here, please credit the owner: “BMG Media Empire LLC.”
Dude.
I found what you did extremely funny. I’m relatively new to this blogging thing and didn’t know that was standard netiquette.
<
p>
touche mon amis touche.
“Touch my male friends touch”? Touché, mes amis, touché.
Kind of an odd response.
<
p>
(PS: just having fun with you. Aside from your man-crush on Ogonowski, you’ve been an interesting conservative interlocutor)
<
p>
Faux pas? Indeed. Uncool? Yip.
<
p>
<
p>
It is not stealing.* It’s true that it is costing you more money, but that doesn’t make it stealing on his part, since you’re choosing to serve up those images on a public server. Deep linking is not stealing. He’s pointing a browser to a file on your server, and you’re serving it up.
<
p>
It’s a bit like accusing the tall person next to you of stealing your sunlight because now you’re in the shade.
<
p>
<
p>
Indeed. Have at it!
<
p>
* It may be a violation of copyright law, which is also not stealing. And, for the record, pirates steal cargo from ships or entire ships. Copyright violators download music. They aren’t the same neither, mateys.
It may be a violation of copyright law, which is also not stealing.
<
p>
Copyright infringement is a theft of intellectual property.
<
p>
Regarding
<
p>
It’s true that it is costing you more money, but that doesn’t make it stealing on his part, since you’re choosing to serve up those images on a public server.
<
p>
More horse manure. BMG isn’t a public server. It is a private server, owned or at least leased by the BMG’s LLC. You, I, and EaBo, and everyone else who is allowed to post post or comment here, other than owners of the LLC, are guests on their property.
<
p>
I also sympathize with David’s “bandwidth theft” complaint. Quite frankly, before posting either a copy of the image or a link to the image, EaBo should have gotten permission to do so, and post an explicit citation to source. That is certainly the way it is done in the commercial and academic world. At my last corporate job, the company was oftentimes asked for permission to publish images producted by authors who were not affiliated with the company in their works. We always gave permission provided that credit was given to source, but we didn’t have a bandwidth expense issue.
<
p>
Did David Get Jim Ogonowski’s permission to scan the image and present it?
<
p>
I now understand the problem, and will correct in the future.
…I suspect that their usage of it would be considered “fair use,” 17 USCode 107. One doesn’t need permission of the copyright owner for fair use.
<
p>
I haven’t been to your post on RMG, so I don’t know the context. Your use might be fair use, if you copied the images to your server and met the other requirements in the copyright statute for fair use.
<
p>
If you merely linked to the images on the BMG server–which is possible to do–without credit to source or a link to the post on which they were presented on BMG, that would have bypassed the ads on BMG, and that may very well have denied them ad revenue.
These guys are retired SJC justice Joseph R. Nolan (left) and Councilor James M. Kelly, on the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling (a 9-0 decision!) that you don’t have to let other people dilute your message or tack on their own message on to yours, making it seem like you endorse other messages. My message here is that I like these guys’ ties.
<
p>
<
p>
We are under no obligation to look at other parts of the site that this photo is stored on in order to see this photo for our purposes of discussion. Nice ties, aren’t they?
You guys are blogs, this is all fair use. You aren’t selling images, or trying to avoid paying for images, or diminishing the value of the work.
<
p>
What do you all think of this:
<
p>
<
p>
I’m not sure what it is, but it is 120.12 KB
how ’bout this: if I leave my car parked on a public street, with the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition, and you hop in and drive away, have you committed theft? After all, I chose to leave my car in a public place in a condition that would allow anyone to take it.
If you put your car on a public street with the keys in and a sign that says “FREE” and somebody takes it…
<
p>
BMG has a server configured to serve up images to anyone who asks. It doesn’t require a login, doesn’t ask why you want it. A client sends a request for a server at your IP address to serve up some bits of data, and your server does just that.
<
p>
It’s like having a “give a penny” jar at the counter of the store and complaining when somebody walks in, takes a penny, and walks out without buying anything. It’s a free penny — it isn’t stealing. The server is offering free images, and EaBo took ’em. There’s no contractual obligation on EaBo’s part.
<
p>
P.S. raj: copyright violation isn’t theft. It’s copyright violation. As much as the RIAA et al would like us believe that they’re the same, they’re simply not.
why my car analogy doesn’t work. Your implicit assumption is that, absent a “FREE” sign, the societal understanding is that the car belongs to someone else, so taking it is theft. But I’d argue that, although the conventions on the internet are less well established, they do exist. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s right.
<
p>
Also, your “take a penny” example is far from obviously right — in fact, I’d say it’s more likely wrong. Again, what’s the societal convention? The store makes it easy for people who are buying something to avoid walking out with a pocketful of pennies. Doesn’t mean they’re willing to let anyone walk in and take them.
<
p>
Finally, the only way “copyright violation isn’t theft” is if intellectual property isn’t property. Which it clearly is. It may not be “larceny,” but I think it’s tough to argue that it’s not theft. They actually do teach us some stuff in law school.
You’ve got a server set up to serve data to anybody who asks. It’s designed to do that, and you are doing just that. The society convention is that when somebody sets up a server on the public Internet — without any password or other barriers to public use — and somebody ask it directly to serve up data, that it’s doing exactly what it was intended to do.
<
p>
You set up a public server, and somebody uses the data you serve in a way you don’t like, and you complain? The car analogy doesn’t make sense because
(i) a car is physical property, not 1s and 0s.
(ii) by consuming bandwidth, your physical property is unchanged.
(iii) computers ask your server for data, and your server chooses to provide it. It’s designed to do exactly that, and it’s configured precisely that way. It’s not an accident and it’s not an atypical use. This is what servers “do”.
<
p>
I’m not arguing that deep linking is ethical. I’m simply arguing that it’s not theft. When you’ve got a server, you don’t get to choose how people consume your data. They get to do things like use local css to change the layout, use AdBlock to not bother viewing the images, or use software to translate the language. You get to chose whether or not to serve up the data — not how it’s consumed once it’s served.
<
p>
How is the “give a penny” argument wrong? I agree that it would be an unusual act, and certainly uncool. But, would it be theft if I walked into the 7-Eleven and took a penny and walked out? I contend that it would not be, given that the sign says something like “Give a penny, take a penny”. The pennies are free. The sign says so. Besides, usually the pennies are provided by customers, not the merchant, although I’m not sure that’s relevant.
<
p>
You create a machine that sends data to anyone who asks. 7-Eleven creates a tray that provides pennies to anyone who asks. Most people use a penny for a purchase. Most people view the .jpg while viewing on the site. The penny tray says “take a penny”. The server provides that file to any IP address that asks. The tray could read “take a penny only for purchases in store”. The server could be configured to only serve up the .jpg to IPs which have logged in.
<
p>
They do teach us some things at engineering school too.
<
p>
As for intellectual property discussion… it’s for another time. Perhaps the nuance with larceny is what I’m hung up on.
… isn’t public just because its on the internet and hosting a webpage. You are not entitled, for example, to hack into it.
A server is public because its configured to serve up data over htt protocol to any IP address which asks for data matching particular directory and file names. You’re not entitled to break into a public library, but you are allowed to walk in and ask if you can borrow a book. If the lady behind the desk says yes, the head librarian can’t come around later and accuse you of theft.
<
p>
Hacking in to a server does violate the law. However, when you download an image from a server, you send a request to the server, asking the server to send a data stream associated with the file name to your IP address. The server can be configured to
(i) do nothing
(ii) send the data
(iii) choose (i) or (ii) based on some criteria.
<
p>
Want to avoid deep linking? Either do (i) or (iii). The server can be easily configured to do so.
<
p>
There’s no “convention” that the owner/operator of the server gets to choose how the consumer of the data gets to use it. None. The server o/o doesn’t have that control, because he’s chosen (ii) on a public server.
… of that but you have to stop calling it a public server. It’s available to the internet but that doesn’t change any of its properties of ownership.
My employer has a private network; if you attempt to view a page, you will get either an error or a request for username and password.
meaning owned by the people, and then there is “Public” available to the people. Note that few servers on the internet qualify in the first definition. When considering the second definition, you must also consider that there are different types of access and almost no server is intended to give you all of them. Just because I let you borrow my car doesn’t mean you have ‘access’ to change my engine.
public means that its configured to serve data to general requests — not requiring login/password. It’s a public server like the seating area of a Dunkin Donuts is a public space.
<
p>
Nobody is implying that the BMG server is public in terms of ownership, simply that with respect to a discussion about computer servers it’s a public server because it does no access control before serving up the data in question.
… but your Dunkin Donuts example is telling. DD is not public space… its private space that has been made (with limits) available to the public for service. I understand what you mean, but strictly speaking, calling DD or a server ‘public’ is to potentially ascribe attributes that are simply not there.
<
p>
And of course it does access control. We talked about hacking already. The fact that the machine is designed in such a way that when you send 1s and 0s to it in a particular pattern you can get a certain resultant 1s and 0s back in no way implies that you are entitled to those resultant 1s and 0s. If you were, there could be no law against hacking (at least the type of hacking that takes advantages of what happens when specific 1s and 0s are transmitted… as opposed to say, stealing your password from your briefcase). The fact that you can get the 1s and 0s you want doesn’t mean that you are entitled to them, even if the machine in question gives them to you by (flaws or intended) design.
<
p>
Similarly, just because you walk into a DD doesn’t mean you are entitled to stay or be served. Thats why ‘public’ is misleading.
… BMG property. They ‘rent’ use of the server on a bandwidth basement. The analogy is renting a hotel room, which can be rented based on the ‘bandwidth’ of occupancy.
on what the societal conventions are. They’re of course not solidly established yet, since this is new, but I’ve read many a discussion of this very subject on other blogs. People care about it, and general consensus does seem to me that it’s wrong.
<
p>
As for “theft,” you’re way too hung up on the importance of “physical property.” Hence my law school point.
We agree that it ain’t cool.
<
p>
We disagree on whether that makes it theft or merely uncool.
<
p>
While you’re clearly the [relative] expert on the law, I’m the [relative] expert on IP* and its conventions. I first read about deep linking in 1996 [it wasn’t called that yet].
<
p>
It requires bandwidth for your machine to send an ACK. So, if I ping BMGs servers, it sends ACKS. Now, BMG doesn’t gain anything from me pinging the machines, ad revenue or otherwise. It does cost them bandwidth. Very little, but bandwidth is bandwidth.
<
p>
Am I a bandwidth theft every time I run
%> ping 72.232.224.162
because the owners of BMG don’t want to use their bandwidth for such a purpose, even though they [through a proxy] have configured a server in Frisco Texas to send ACKs to any machine that pings them?
<
p>
If BMG had a message on their front page “If you want to read any farther, you must send a check for $5 to BMG Media Enterprises, 1 Main Street, Boston MA” and people didn’t but kept reading, would that be theft?
<
p>
You’re running a public server. It’s configured to send data from certain directories to anyone who asks for it. You can’t then complain that somebody is using the free service — which includes both (a) telling the server exactly who they are (IP) and asking for the data each time.
<
p>
relative between the two of us
IP == Internet Protocol, not intellectual property
… there is no question that being connected to the internet and being configured in a certain way makes content on the server available to the internet, but the question that is not clear is what, exactly, does that situation entitle the client user to? Hacking can be thought of as a means of bypassing intended protocol. It isn’t, in and of itself, a violation of the connection. The connection, as configured, was set up on the server itself. Can we avoid prosecuting hackers just because they successfully used the protocols in an unintended way? Of course not. So just making the argument that “it was there just sitting on the internet, configured to respond to requests in specific ways” is clearly not sufficient to justify any specific use. Similarly, just because content is available on the internet doesn’t mean you can have carte blanch. Since I think it is pretty clear that availability alone does not define what is permissible, there must be other criteria at play here. The question is, what are these other criteria then? Are they legal, or societal in nature? Have they been agreed upon?
<
p>
Is the server a public* server? If yes then the intent is to serve that data to anyone who requests it**. That’s how a public server works. That’s how it’s intended to work, going back to darpanet. There’s over 20 years of history.
<
p>
If the content is available on the internet on a public server [not a private server with a compromised password system or even a private server configured incorrectly], the intent is to serve the data to whomever requests it. That’s how the Internet works. That’s why EaBos actions, while impolite and foolish***, aren’t theft.
<
p>
* Public == available without user authentication on the web. Yes, this is the right word, and should be used to differentiate it from a private server… a server for which, if EaBo was pulling data from, would likely be illegal.
<
p>
** I’m not sure where a DOS or a DDOS comes in to play, but that’s not at issue in this case.
<
p>
*** Foolish for exactly the reasons that David demonstrated with the Romney’s burning blimp.
it’s BMG Media Empire. “Enterprises” loses all the grandeur. 😉
if you were BMG Enterprises, then you could get the FCC rating of NCC-1701-BMG!
<
p>
god, i’m a nerd. a nurd, even.
raj: copyright violation isn’t theft. It’s copyright violation. As much as the RIAA et al would like us believe that they’re the same, they’re simply not.
<
p>
…why are there criminal penalties for some forms of copyright infringement?
<
p>
Regardless of how you might want to spin it, copyright infringement is theft. It’s reducing the remuneration to the owner of the copyright, and that’s why it is theft.
that doesn’t make those theft either.
<
p>
There are also lots of ways for me to reduce somebody else’s income stream, and those aren’t implicitly theft either.
<
p>
Copyright violation is copyright violation. It’s it’s own thing. It doesn’t need to be called something else, and let’s be clear: if I steal your bicycle, you’re worth has been reduced by one bicycle. If I photocopy your book, your worth has not been reduced by one book. It’s been reduced by anywhere between the royalties you’d have been paid from the book sale if I’d have purchased the book had I not been able to violate the copyright to nothing if I would not have purchased the book had I not been able to violate the copyright. In no cases has your worth been reduced by $17.95 for a book selling at $17.95.
<
p>
That’s why calling it theft doesn’t make sense — stealing physical objects [or even services, though harder to do] has a clear, symmetric mapping of value. Copyright infringement does not.
That’s why calling it theft doesn’t make sense — stealing physical objects [or even services, though harder to do] has a clear, symmetric mapping of value. Copyright infringement does not.
<
p>
Mapping of value? The map is between the right to make a copy vs. the payment for the making of the copy. I’m amused that you are trying so hard to distinguish copyright infringement from theft.
<
p>
I suppose that iTunes, for example, could distribute its entire catelog of audio works for free. It does for some iPod downloads, if the copyright owner allows them to. It doesn’t for most music, for example. And, when they charge for a music download, they pay part of that to the copyright owner. That was the failure of the music “sharing” services: they didn’t provide for payment of royalties.
It actually uses more BMG bandwidth if redstate readers click on the link to the BMG post about the mailers, but then, they’d have to visit BMG and see all the ads and stories here. And since David happily put up those alternative photos, it obviously wasn’t about the bandwidth.
<
p>
And it wouldn’t be a violation of any copyright laws to hotlink the images or even to copy them to a new url. In fact, blogs by their very nature cannot violate any copyright laws because everything they post is for purposes of discussion and education. Has a blogger ever been successfully sued for copying an article or image under discussion to their own blog? Yet for some reason blogs are over-enforcing “copyright violations”, lying about it being against the law not to link to a referenced article. Clearly they just want to make people have to make more visits to each other’s sites, to make them all a little more money and maybe get their own message out, which is a first amendment violation of the person that is trying to comment on the article. We CAN copy any copyrighted article for purposes of discussion and avoid sending our reader to another blog to make them money or hear their message.
In fact, blogs by their very nature cannot violate any copyright laws because everything they post is for purposes of discussion and education.
<
p>
This is incorrect. Blogs can violate copyright laws if the posters or commenters merely post a substantial portion of copyrighted work but do not comment on what has been posted. See paragraph (1) of the blockquote below.
<
p>
Has a blogger ever been successfully sued for copying an article or image under discussion to their own blog?
<
p>
Two points. I suspect that there would not be enough money involved to warrant suing a blogger for copyright infringement. Moreover, I suspect that most bloggers are “judgement proof,” that is, they don’t have enough money to satisfy a judgement anyway.
<
p>
We CAN copy any copyrighted article for purposes of discussion and avoid sending our reader to another blog to make them money or hear their message.
<
p>
Actually, no you generally can’t.copy an entire work for purposes of discussion.
<
p>
<
p>
http://www.law.corne…
<
p>
The bolded part is relevant to this issue. I haven’t paid close attention, but I know of no case that held that copying an entire copyrighted work that is longer than a paragraph or two would be fair use.
there is actually such a case (though in video, not print):
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t know the details, I just know that the case exists.
Ha ha – forgot to link to the article I quoted!
The text of the opinions is here.
<
p>
The case did not involve direct copyright infringement, but instead contributory infringement. Universal sued Sony over the Betamax claiming that Sony’s sale of the Betamax “contributed” to copyright infringement by the ultimate customers. Sony itself was not creating copies. Contributory infringement requires that the plaintiff, in this case, Universal, show that there were no substantial non-infringing uses, and Universal was unable to show that.
<
p>
The contributory infringement doctrine–which is also in patent law–requires substantially different kinds of evidence than direct infringement.
Like, the part about “for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” Even if a blogger doesn’t comment himself, everything he posts on his blog is for purposes of discussion and education.
<
p>
3 is like the least relevant to us, and in another document the copyright office affirms that it doesn’t matter how much of a work is copied: “There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.” You can post the entire work if that is beneficial to the purposes of discussion and education, or excerpt it if that is beneficial. I’d prefer to see the whole article unless it is too long to scroll through, and I’d like to have my works reposted in their full context, not excerpted.
<
p>
and #4, It will NEVER happen that reprinting an article on a blog will diminish the value of the work. Maybe, if someone made a blog specifically to reprint nytimes articles ad-free, the nytimes would have a case that people will stop going to their site, but I haven’t seen any blogs like that. They usually are not a reliable way to find copyrighted works.
One, regarding “multiple copies for classroom use,” it should be obvious that an instructor cannot make multiple copies substantial portions (item (3)) of a work–a textbook, for example–for classroom use without affecting the potential market for or value of a copyrighted work (item (4)).
<
p>
Two, regarding “scholarship” and “research” it might surprise you to know that more than a few academic publications charge quite a bit for their publications (ACM and IEEE certainly do), and some are even for-profit (Elsavier and Springer Verlag come to mind). Allowing free copying of entire articles from those publications would substantially effect the potential market for or value of their copyrighted works (item (4) above).
<
p>
Three, regarding “news reporting,” it is fairly unclear what that refers to, but, let’s consider the following. ABC news repeats CBS news reports, without permission, instead of going out and gathering the news themselves. That would effect the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (again, item (4) above). You aren’t seriously going to contend that ABC new’s use of CBS’s reportage is fair use, are you?
<
p>
Four, regarding “criticism” and “comment,” it refers to criticism and comment by the person or persons who post excerpts of the works being criticized or commented on. Not for the purpose of allowing others to criticize or comment.
<
p>
Getting back to your comment
<
p>
It will NEVER happen that reprinting an article on a blog will diminish the value of the work.
<
p>
Sorry, but that’s absurd. These web sites are subsidized by advertising. Reprinting entire works on another blog reduces the incentive for people to click to the blog that originated the work, thereby reducing the possible advertising revenues to the blog that originated the work. Why in heck do you think that honorable blogs at least do their “hat tips” to their sources?
<
p>
BTW, you might want to consider going to law school. Your playing armchair lawyer doesn’t work very well.
regarding “scholarship” and “research”
<
p>
There exists what I believe is referred to as the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). Most professional and academic journals have a legend on the first pages of their articles that indicates a price for making a copy. The libraries collect the revenues, submit them to the CCC and the CCC distributes them to the respective copyright holders. The CCC has been around for at least two decades.
Why in heck do you think that honorable blogs at least do their “hat tips” to their sources?
<
p>
They should link to sources only to prove the veracity of the quote – NOT to subject their readers to advertising. Cool blogs don’t have advertising anyhow.
<
p>
Reprinting entire works on another blog reduces the incentive for people to click to the blog that originated the work, thereby reducing the possible advertising revenues to the blog that originated the work.
<
p>
The point is that readers should not have to go visit the other site and be subjected to their message and advertising and subsidize them in order for us to be educated about what an article said or for us to discuss and comment on an article. Yes, an excerpt might result in more readers clicking to the site than the whole article would, but it’s not like the other site was counting on any mention at all, so it is hard to argue that it causes loss of value.
<
p>
Law school isn’t going to resolve this question, it only allows people to charge more for their opinions. The problem I am complaining about is that too many blogs are protecting their ad revenue by encouraging linking, claiming that copying isn’t fair use, when as far as I know, no blog has ever been successfully sued for reprinting an article for discussion purposes. I think that’s because it is clearly fair use. So I think blogs should assertively be on the public’s side rather than corporate copyright owners and advertisers.
<
p>
Moreover, I suspect that most bloggers are “judgement proof,” that is, they don’t have enough money to satisfy a judgement anyway.
<
p>
This doesn’t stop the RIAA from suing teenagers. If they have a case they will protect their copyright, even if they get nothing from the individuals they sued. The fact is, no blogger has been sued because they all are doing fair use, but mp3 traders are not.
…On the other hand, most bloggers are not wealthy, and it is unlikely that they could sustain civil suits against infringers.
<
p>
Your analogy is–how shall I put it?–a bit misplaced.
<
p>
Regarding the RIAA threats, it should be evident that they stubbed their toes in not doing their homework before filing suit.
Breach of netiquette? I suppose so. “Bandwidth stealing”? I guess. Whatever — I hotlink to stuff once in a while, and usually I just provide a courtesy link to the originator.
<
p>
Funny prank? A good chuckle? Definitely.
I did provide a link to you 😉
<
p>
I admit though it taught me a lesson about using another’s stored photo for illustration. Never know when that photo is going to change do you.
We ARE the party of Life, Liberty and Property, after all!
…creative commons license. Dan Kennedy’s web site makes use of such a license http://creativecommo…
<
p>
He has limitations on the license to “non-commercial” and it is unclear whether that includes sites that make use of advertising.
It’s in the “About” box, and also linked in the little “Some rights reserved” line at the bottom of the screen.
David – Dan and I do both display the silver ‘lozenge’. Perhaps putting itn the ‘About’ section is a little obscure; and for SURE the 29-point agate type at the bottom is too tiny!
<
p>
that said – I’m not sure Soapblox supports the widget?