On 5/20/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
There's nothing wrong with it. We simply don't
require it.
So after this email I went ahead and attempted to contact about 9
copyright holders whos works were from stock.xchng, it would have been
10 but one of them already had all his work taken off stock.xchng for
it being copyright violating (trying to get clarification on that from
stock.xchng).
My emails basically said "I noticed your picture is being used in the
Wikipedia Encyclopedia article on [link]" gush gush how wonderful and
how it improves the article then "I noticed that it is labeled public
domain, I know stock.xchng only gives you a few licensing options, and
I wanted to know if this was an accurate description of how you
intended to license your work?"
I've received three replies back so far, one indicating that her work
was indeed "free for any use" but two who complained that stock.xchng
isn't clear in their licensing and that their work isn't PD. One of
them said his work is cc-by-nc-sa, and I've updated one of his images
accordingly (but since most of the images have no attribution, it's
difficult to go find all of his photos).
I find it really amusing that we went through the trouble of having a
vote on this when we could have just asked the copyright holders.