The big issue I have always had with CC is that it takes the rights you have been granted under copyright and supercedes that to an individual contract situation. This is a VASTLY different situation than the protections you are granted under federal copyright law, and one that could also yield vastly different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction should a legal situation arise.

Copysense recently wrote an editorial about this very issue (here’s the link http://tinyurl.com/ndf6w2). The editorial raises lots of other questions about whether or not CC has been good for the debate on reforming copyright. They conclude that CC has actually had a negative impact, and I see their point.

However I can also see the opposite side of the coin in that the argument could be made that CC has thrust the copyright debate into a place where more people are aware of the issue of copyright reform.

this is so very true, and apart from that, don’t we all learned that our sources must be credit?

besides old and simple honesty, I think we all learned at school (and at home) that we can’t quote, or use someone else material without giving credit, there isn’t even need to know IP rights, thats common sense and integrity.

Thought for a second it was some new blog with that name. LOL

Excellent article, Prad and one that is well-needed. And for the record, my entire Flickr stream is CC Attribute; No-derivs.

I am and have been a professional photographer for longer than I want to admit here. I like the CC system and use it for a limited selection of my work.

As for my fully copyrighted (All Rights) artwork… well, I know better than to plop those up on the Internet, especially in photo-sharing places like Flickr.

So it’s really all about control.

And yes, I’ve seen the recent blogging on unauthorized derivs of SL artwork being resold – I concur it’s shameful and pitiful.

I think this statement is especially important:
“If you don’t see anything written at all, assume it has All Rights Reserved and that you can’t use it.”

SO many people go the other way “oh well, it didn’t say anything.” and I understand that often this is ignorance… but it surprises me time and time again that people assume “if it’s on the web, it’s free”

A related issue not really addressed here is sites that allow you to download images for free, personal use. (ie: wallpapers) They are only free for your personal use, not for public display or profit. Grabbing an image from one of these “free” sites is not the equivalent of a cc license or public domain.

1) Creative Commons licenses build on top of copyright laws, they don’t replace them. The owner of a copyright has the right to license their works as they see fit, and one option is to license them with a Creative Commons license. If I decide to license a photo with a CC license, I’m not giving up my copyright (unless I deed the photo to the public domain).

2) I don’t think any country has changed its copyright laws to take Creative Commons licenses into account. They don’t have to. I think what you meant to say is that many licenses (blobs of text) have been “ported” or “localized” for many different countries; that was done because licenses build on top of copyright law, which varies from country to country.

But be careful with recommending Flickr. Yes, it allows CC license options. However it’s default is All rights Reserved.

All the professional photographers I watch on Flickr are totally All Rights Reserved. They also watermark their images and put rights claims in their comments section. For them, flickr is used as an impromptu portfolio.

Flickr is definitely not all CC and that impression should not be given.