I can't quite understand the objection here. So Cambridge University make high quality digital images of highly prized material and make it freely available for anyone to see, but ask people not to use it for commercial reasons without permission, and that is bad?
Taking the conditions in turn, people cannot:
-Create & sell a T Shirt from one of the images without permission
-Download an image & alter it using photoshop to create "proof" that Newton wrote something different from what he really did
-Sell one of the images on the site to an unsuspecting buyer
-Re-skin the content and pretend they created it
-Re-skin the entire database and present it as their own
What is so wrong with that?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by laura.
I can't quite understand the objection here. So Cambridge University make high quality digital images of highly prized material and make it freely available for anyone to see, but ask people not to use it for commercial reasons without permission, and that is bad?
Taking the conditions in turn, people cannot:
-Create & sell a T Shirt from one of the images without permission
-Download an image & alter it using photoshop to create "proof" that Newton wrote something different from what he really did
-Sell one of the images on the site to an unsuspecting buyer
-Re-skin the content and pretend they created it
-Re-skin the entire database and present it as their own
What is so wrong with that?