The process is confusing, the red tape frustrating.

[Nicu Buculei]

John Baer wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Mairin Duffy wrote:
> 
>     I do not believe the practice of using other's work without citing it,
>     even if it's scratch work, in a public forum is really acceptable just
>     out of respect for other artists, you know? Even here when we build on
>     each other's work I've noticed we've been very good about stating whose
>     works we built upon. I think it's a good practice even outside of the
>     fact that the CLA requires it, honestly.
> 
> However, how would you or I know if the artwork is original? Is it safe 
> to assume it is unless otherwise stated?

Yes, lacking a statement the default assumption is that the work is 
original and owned by the contributor.

> I would never blast you the way Nicu blasted me, but I assume the 

Sorry if I was too strong and offended you.
I just know you to certain degree (as well as other contributors here 
and their work) and I don't know you as a photographer, so I made the 
assumption those photos are not yours (as opposed of what should be the 
default assumption in the lack of a statement)

> photo's on your submission are yours as you have not made a statement of 
> attribution.

Now is time to offend Mairin :p (my apologies in advance): on top of the 
fact she already stated the photos are made by her, you can see from the 
photos that they are not made by someone which has not the first job as 
a photographer and may use also some post-processing (they are not 
finished works, but some of them look better than the other).

> Do you need to? ;)
> 
> Finally, wouldn't these rules apply to all forms of artwork?

Definitely, this should apply to all forms of intellectual creation, not 
only artwork, it is the same for code.

-- 
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro