article is confusing
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| chalex Apr 13, 2016 7:16 PM EDT |
It's almost as if the article tries to be misleading on purpose? The defendant correctly attributed the photo to the author, as the license requires. Case closed. OH, I see what they're getting at. I think the article is trying to point out that the plaintiff thought that the defendant must include a URL to their Flickr page, whereas they really only need to include a URN for the license itself. |
Post a reply to this thread:
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
