[austenallred]

BuzzFeed bothers me as much as the next person, but how mad can you really be at BuzzFeed for linking back to the wrong page, according to how you see it, that still contains the original picture and is publicly viewable?

[mnutt]

It'd be more nitpicky if the image were Creative Commons-licensed in the first place, but it wasn't. Buzzfeed linking back to the original is just pretending like it's CC and attribution is all that is required. (assuming they didn't just make a mistake)

Linking to the wrong page sounds like they were probably on that page to download the image, and when they went to get the attribution they just happened to have that tab open. Most likely laziness, not malice.

[porsupah]

One thought that comes to mind is in the line "So all those 4 million plus views who may click through, will they count as “Views” on my Flickr page? No."

Bear that in mind - if this is accurate (and the guy once worked on Flickr), then linking to the download page avoids bumping the photo's view count up, which might indicate to the photographer that the photo's been featured on a highly trafficked page.

[austenallred]

That sounds like a Flickr problem more than a BuzzFeed problem.

[dmazin]

Well, that's why the author said it's why they're not _pleased_ with the way it was used - because they linked to it in the manner least beneficial to the creator.

[trafficlight]

The point is that they linked to the source, which did not specify that it was licensed under Creative Commons, and offered a convenient way to contact the photographer.

[snowwrestler]

Linking back to a web page (any page) is not a get-out-of-jail card for copyright infringement.