People occasionally ask why I don't assign my photos a Creative Commons license. Dan Heller explains. And adds a horror story here.
The short of it is, while Creative Commons was established with the best of intentions it is easily abused in the photographic setting. Users unknowingly open themselves up to large legal risks, and I find photo licensing by traditional means to be both more secure and more professional.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This morning I had to deny a scientist permission to use my photos of her ants in a paper headed for PLoS Biology. I hate doing that. Especially when I took those photos in part to help her to promote her research.
The problem is that PLoS content is managed under a Creative Commons (=CC)…
The rise of microstock photography has many established photographers wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over how microstock companies are destroying the business.
What is microstock? It is a relatively new internet-based business model that licenses existing images for scandalously low…
immlass: You have no privacy. Get over it.
"Facebook may be sleazy and selling more of your information than you like to advertisers, but the idea it wants to steal your IP and do something with it seems vanishingly unlikely. I suspect the change in TOS has something to do with protecting their…
As I mentioned last week, on Tuesday, April 17 I was part of a workshop on Creative Commons our Scholarly Communications Committee put on for York library staff. My section was on open data and the Panton Principles. While not directly related to Creative Commons, we thought talking a bit about…