Lori Koonce wrote:Barber
Here's what I think you're missing. The most restrictive CC license is written using the same laws that All Rights Reserved would follow.
So, if you choose that one, you aren't giving any permission to anyone for anything.
But I already HAVE that right. Why...if it's already there protecting my work...do I stand to gain anything by having to go out and explain it explicitly?
And secondly, does the Commons come with additional teeth in the event someone thumbs their nose and uses the pic anyway? Is there something in the concept that says they will pursue and pay for the legal case to recover my payment?
The CC is only a way to force all artists to declare what is already law: don't use my stuff without my permission (which is what the vast majority of professional photographers will tell you is their preference).
I'm really missing any kind of value to professionals -- though it really does cover the backsides of people who can argue I didn't declare, so therefore it's open season on my photographs. Very few people, when you really get down to brass tacks, truly want their photographs freely posted on the net. Whether it's a news shot
( the main sort of photo pilfered); an advertising or fashion shot (the second most, just take a look at those cut-rate soft porn girl in a bikini sites); or photos of your kids on a pedo site (don't ask, but they exist) -- most folks would just as soon their pics be requested instead of taken and blogged into oblivion.
If you want your shots freely distributed, you can opt OUT of Copyright law by either saying so outright or not pursuing abusers. The rest of us would prefer the burden of proof rest with the person who wants to USE the shot. If you don't have permission, hands off. How much simpler can it get than that?
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.