[indiekid]

It should be noted that I actually never claimed a copyright, nor copyright protection on this. Creative Commons isn't a copyright. I'm also not mad about the uses of this image. I moreso just wanted to call out the fact that there was no attribution happening, as requested through the CC license.

[rm999]

Don't you need a copyright to license it?

[klez]

IANAL but I think the moment you put a license on it you claimed copyright. IIRC you don't have rights to license someone else's creation without consent

[reeses]

YANAL. It was copyrighted the moment it came into existence as his work.

[klez]

YDNR (you did not read :P) I say he put a license and this implies he claimed copyright.

[reeses]

That's the thing. You don't 'claim' copyright. It is a right established by the Berne Convention. You would file a claim if your copyright were violated, but other than that, you control distribution of your original work as long as Sonny Bono says. :-)

Points for coining a new abbrev. YDNR is going into my "snarky, not explained" responses in emails. :-) "What does that mean?" "Oh, I often hit some keys for a macro on my home computer that don't expand on this machine."

[rm999]

Look at my original comment that started this subthread. If it's a derivative work (which it seems to be) Google owns the copyright to OP's image.