... I think the plain vanilla CC license you suggested is fine. I
wonder what kind of feed-back CC
licensees get from users?
The product is free. Why wouldn't they love them? And they ignore
the license too.
I'd like to see how the images get used.
everywhere you go - billboards, full page ads in magazines, web
sites all over the internet.
Licenses like that make it much harder for me to earn a living.
There are two issues here.
1. I've chosen to include "attribution" in my Creative Commons
license -- which means I must be acknowledged as the creator. And I
also permit use in derivative works (montages, compilations, ...). I
have received emails advising of use of my work, in derivative works,
by the creators of those derivative works. All complying with the CC
license on my photographs.
2. The third aspect of the CC license I use, is non-commercial. I
feel strongly about this. If someone wants to use my work for
commerce, then they must approach me directly, and seek permission.
They are contravening the CC license to do otherwise. As they would
be, in just using a copyrighted work.
Of course, I set the terms: and that _will_ involve a payment for
commercial use. While I do not depend upon my photography for my sole
livelihood, I have no intention of ruining the livelihood of
full-time photographers. That would not be fair.
I think the CC licenses are beaut, and allow all of us to apply a
reasonable set of conditions on the use of our creative efforts.
--
&i (:
