When someone contacted me about using the picture of the unidentified turtle at left, I was easy about giving it because it was for some web forums about turtles, in a foreign language, and I would love to know the proper scientific name for the turtle.

The Creative Commons License I use requires attribution. And to me, attribution means a link back to the picture, if not to one of my websites - it doesn't require it in the Creative Commons license itself, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb for people who run websites: Link to where you got the content from. For one, it is the polite thing to do. Secondly, and more importantly when it comes to getting your content seen, it helps search engines decide the value of content - it values both sites, once the links are contextual.

To me, it is common sense that has become embedded in my psyche.

I was to find out, though, that where the images were to be shown was run by a person who did not understand this - something that seems so simple for people who run websites to understand. They didn't want any links leaving the site for some peculiar, oddball, catbox imbued reason.

And so I revoked permission for the use of that photograph, and others. Sure, I could have my name up on an obscure site as someone who took a picture of a turtle - perhaps shooting me to stardom - but the real issue is how I wish to be attributed and that when I am attributed, I should gain a benefit other than Yet Another Search Engine Result for my name. If you like what I do, shouldn't you link to it?

Attribution on the Internet includes linking. But in Law, I do not think this is yet the case. So if you want to use images without linking to either the original picture or myself, I have two words for you: 'Pay Me'.

'Nuff said.