I have never been a fan of Creative Commons licensing. This article by some guy called Scott, does a great job of articulating why it sucks:
http://rising.blackstar.com/why-photographers-hate-creative-commons.html
Alex Georgiadis
Boy, that's depressing! Did you read this one:
"The bigger reality is that the value of photos is approaching $zero. Cameras have gigabytes of memory. Grade school kids can and do use PhotoShop and Google image search. Yes there are Photographs that can and do spark the imagination, that capture a poignant moment, that make a statement that people of any language or nationality can understand...but they are not a rarity. In a world of billions of people and billions of cameras everyone is going to take a few of those perfect moment pictures and millions of them will go online. Photography as a paid profession is a dying business."
As we slide further down the slippery slope that was started with Royalty Free and entered free fall with Micro Stock, I am determined to stick with Rights Managed photos only. My photos are all registered with the Copyright office and anybody wanting to use them for any purpose had better be willing to compensate me for my work. I don't see any other professionals giving their work away for a creative common use. When is the last time a plumber unstopped your sink for free? Or an electrician rewired your house for nothing just because anybody can buy wires and plugs? For people whose hobby is photography and who want to share their snapshots, Creative Commons might be an option. For a professional photographer, trying to make a living, it is not an option - neither is Royalty Free or Micro Stock!
Tina
ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI
http://www.tinamanley.com
