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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!