I cannot believe the ignorance of some people. I can see suing Virgin Mobile over their lack of credit to the rights holder, as this is an understood term of the CC license that was chosen by the creator of the image. As for suing CC, that is one of the silliest things I have heard of in a while. I would like to know what kind of "filmmaker," as Chang is described in the poorly, misinformed article (found here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception ) states him as being, doesn't know fully what "Commercial Use" means. I find it hard to swallow that this Chang man didn't know what he was licensing his work as, if you go to the site it is about as clear as glass- it is even in cartoon form for the easily confused "filmmakers" out there who might not know what 'commercial use' or other generic, common licensing terms mean. Note to all: Please, stay away from CC licensing if you don't take the time to learn about it. It is not a fad. It is a healthy alternative to the strict copyright protections offered, which are for those who want 70+years of full control over their pictures of nieces throwing a peace sign. I feel sorry for many people on many different levels here.

who knew COMMERCIAL USE could mean USE IN A COMMERCIAL? that is rocket science! Your average Flickr-using idiot couldn't possibly know that. i'm SURE he read ALL the relevant terms when he was posting his stupid mug on flickr. CC should have come to his house, held him down, and patiently explained what COMMERCIAL USE is. Whew! almost had to take responsibility for yourself there, genius. Good thing you managed to weasel out of it.

Did Virgin give them credit for the photo anywhere? Online or in the ad? Since so many of Flickr’s photos are public, they should allow you to add a watermark to your photos so this doesn’t happen! Other sites like Smugmug and Pixamo, let you do that, I know. You have to pay for Smugmug, but Pixamo is free.