This doesn't seem like a collision of fair use and creative commons so much as a simple refusal to use fair use in the first place. The publications have decided that fair use is not sufficient for their needs, requiring instead a more explicit licensing agreement that fits their needs better.
The author even brings this up "This is not a problem with Creative Commons per se, but a structural issue with publishers that are inflexible in how they handle content." Then IMMEDIATELY continues with "I thought I’d share it here, though, as a counter-intuitive example of how Creative Commons can suppress the distribution of information."
EXCEPT this is NOT an example (counter intuitive, or otherwise) of how CC can suppress distribution. Rather this is an example of publishers STEALING images.
As the author pointed out, if the paper uses copyrighted photos with permission, or by fair use, the publisher of the paper CAN NOT just apply CC licensing to those photos. This is not a problem with CC this is a problem with the publisher.
From what I read in the post I don't think the publisher is stealing the images so much as rejecting them if they don't meet the license requirements.
While this paper illustrates an unfortunate side-effect, it's really no different to the Linux kernel rejecting code that isn't under a GPL2-compatible license.
Comments
This doesn't seem like a collision of fair use and creative commons so much as a simple refusal to use fair use in the first place. The publications have decided that fair use is not sufficient for their needs, requiring instead a more explicit licensing agreement that fits their needs better.
The author even brings this up "This is not a problem with Creative Commons per se, but a structural issue with publishers that are inflexible in how they handle content." Then IMMEDIATELY continues with "I thought I’d share it here, though, as a counter-intuitive example of how Creative Commons can suppress the distribution of information." EXCEPT this is NOT an example (counter intuitive, or otherwise) of how CC can suppress distribution. Rather this is an example of publishers STEALING images. As the author pointed out, if the paper uses copyrighted photos with permission, or by fair use, the publisher of the paper CAN NOT just apply CC licensing to those photos. This is not a problem with CC this is a problem with the publisher.
From what I read in the post I don't think the publisher is stealing the images so much as rejecting them if they don't meet the license requirements.
While this paper illustrates an unfortunate side-effect, it's really no different to the Linux kernel rejecting code that isn't under a GPL2-compatible license.