Creative Commons vs. standard Copyright

I'd like to get your opinions on how you view copyright as it regards to your photography (or business). I'd also like to know in what situations a standard copyright has helped (or not helped) when your work was stolen.

I personally am in favor of allowing intellectual property protection as licensed by the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is an alternative to standard copyrights. You set the terms (no commercial use, no derivative works, etc) on your work, and still have legal protection in the event of someone using your images in a way you hadn't allowed.

It's also worth noting that the largest photo sharing site, flickr, uses (or at least encourages) Creative Commons licensing on shared photos. There's an interview with Stewart Butterfield, the founder of flickr, discussing Creative Commons: http://creativecommons​.org/image/flickr

What are your thoughts about copyright in terms of your photography? Do you feel that the standard "all rights reserved" is the best solution?

--John

Personally, I prefer "all rights reserved." And I don't have a very high opinion of Flickr in light of the fact that a lot of blatant image theft goes on there. Others, I'm sure, will not agree, and they are welcome to their opinion. I shoot for pay, so I retain the copyright on my creations.

I agree with Liza. Under CC it is way too easy for person 1 to grab a copy of your image and then (knowingly or not, it doesn't matter) pass it off to a friend who then ends up using it on his/her website, in a publication or anywhere else that it shouldn't be.

I also agree with Liza on the image theft. It's not only flickr but alot of the sites could care less about providing safeguards for our works. I belong to flickr but only so that I can participate in my local camera clubs group there.

ssim,

I see what you're saying, but I'm curious as to how standard copyright helps stop the scenario (Person 1 giving the image to someone else) or help you legally that event. If the image is used on a website or publication, it qualifies as "Commercial" and therefore in violation of the copyright (if you chose the no-commercial license). In the end, if someone wants your picture they can right-click and save all they want. The important thing is that an image on a website won't be suitable for any sort of print.

I also don't want to sound like a flickr fanboy (don't use it). I'm just curious as to how much a regular copyright has actually helped people in court or other situations when their work was stolen.

When your work is easily copied, I understand the need to protect it. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trolling. I'm just curious as to the thoughts of professionals.

Interesting concept, but since you can register the (C) of a CD of thousands of images for $45, why worry about how good the CC protection would be?

For many of us, that's the wrong question. You are worried about theft. Many of us aren't, at least not worried about theft by people who would never actually pay for something if they were only given the choice to either pay or do without. And the information age is transforming things in ways that mean the traditional rules no longer seem to fit. Creativecommons.org seems to be down so here it is second hand, from Wikipedia:

All of my photos are CC licensed, attribute, non commercial, share and share alike. You might find the range of answers in THIS thread very intriguing:
https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=612​10&page=10

Note specifically that the license I have chosen allows me to retain FULL commercial value of my work. I CAN license these works commercially to any and all entities SEPARATE from the uses I have granted via CC licensing. I'm not killing the goose by giving the golden eggs away. This is where many critics of CC, specifically those with direct financial ties to commercial works, fail to see the leap and claim that this system cannot work for them, when in fact if used properly could result in tremendously more income.

Frankly, I think that those who are selling or licensing their works to cheap-o stock houses for $1 a use are a MUCH bigger threat to the profession than giving away non commercial use via CC and reserving the rights on commercial granting ever could.

Sorry to single you out Liza but this is the attitude I'm talking about. You assume that since I have licensed some of my photos using CC that I have given away my copyright, when that absolutely has not happened. I have relaxed copyright for sure, but I RETAIN it where it could benefit me financially and granted the rest of the world (who don't profit from my images) the rights to use it in advance of the time frame in which they will eventually get it anyway. You do understand that copyright isnt perpetual right? You dont get it forever. Congress has set aside a certain period of time (grumble grumble its too long now and thats a long but different story, driven mostly by the Walt Disney Company!) and eventually, with your blessing or not all of us (or at least our children!) will have complete public domain access to ALL of your works! We can even make money on your work at that time!

Copyright is a tradeoff, you are granted it to protect your ability to make money on your works presumably in your lifetime (and your heirs are given some time to capitalize on it too!) in EXCHANGE for the perpetual right to use it when that term ends. It's a great deal for artists of all kinds. But consider the following scenarios:

- You want to let your creative works free for non commercial use
- You want to let your works into the public domain NOW not after their term expires
- You want to leverage the beauty of the information age and gain exposure for your work while still maintaining the ability to make money on it throughout its lifetime

Then those and many other reasons are why you might want to consider CC.

Don't take my word on it tho, actually go read the creativecommons.org site with an open mind, and actually think about what they are trying to accomplish before you write it off because you haven't thought it all the way through or are going in with preconceived notions. If after really giving them a good read (in engineering the term is GROK. Once you drink deep the concept of something, you are said to grok it, or truly understand it!) you still decide to retain all rights, well that's fine with them too! Nobody is saying anyone has to move to these licenses. All they are doing is extending legal options that give artists MORE choices and help mold the technology to protect both those who retain full copyright and those who choose to extend their fellow man some freedoms with their creations.

Heh, and while I'm picking on ya Liza, this made me chuckle:

What made me laugh is that right below that is the link to your myspace profile. Myspace is about a billion times worse on copyright violations than Flickr is. =)

So lets pick on Sheldon next. =) I actually respect both Sheldon and Liza a lot, so I hope they understand I say picking on in jest, they just give me good springboards to reply to!

Perhaps but I think this is comparatively minor. There is an inherent risk you are taking by putting anything on line, whether you have it locked down with DRM, watermarks, and 36 point HEY THIS IS COPYRIGHT JACKASS DONT STEAL IT written in flashing neon around it, or under CC licensing. Certainly anyone can take creative assets of any type and put them on the web without your permission. The only way to keep something truly safe is to put it in a safe and never show it to anyone, and even then the safe could be stolen and cracked. So maybe the only truly safe thing to do with these things is destroy them before they ever get out =)

Bottom line is that content will find its way onto the networks and trying to prevent all infringement will drive one mad, broke or both.

Given that reality, which seems like a smarter move?
-Trying desperately to cling to copyright that won't be respected by people who have zero possibility of profitting from your work anyway.
-Licensing your works with creative commons, putting in the metadata to let businesses know that you retain copyright but if they USE it to contact you you are agreeable to working with them and making a transaction to both profit from the work. Risking the fact that somewhere in the exposure chain that they used to find your work that some middleman accidentally stripped the metadata, but if they do an adequate search they might find other versions of it on the web somewhere and be able to get to you. And in those cases where legitimate businesses are unable to find the original creator, they couldnt use those works anyway! And if some unscrupulous business DOES use your works for commercial gain and you find out about it, you can sue them into oblivion cause you still have those rights you retained while granting others?

I know which one works for me, tho I do concede that many creators might find the concept scary. I'm not saying its going to take over the world tomorrow, all I'm saying is that its a concept and philosophy that works for me and I hope others really look into it and what it offers before dismissing it out of hand.

Sam

I think it's worth noting here that there is no dichotomy between a Creative Commons license and copyright - that is, it's not that you use a CC license instead of copyright, a CC license is an implementation of copyright. This is so in the same fashion that licensing one of your images for use by a client is not an alternative to copyright, it's an implementation thereof.

By licensing works with a CC license (for example, attribution, non-commercial, no-derivative) you are not waiving your copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact: you are using copyright law to specifically define what you allow to be done with your image. This does not change the need to register your images quarterly, since you will still be relying on copyright law to award you damages in case of violation. What this CC license would do is:

1) prohibit anyone from displaying or using your work without proper attribution
2) prohibit anyone from modifying or otherwise using your work in their own
3) prohibit anyone from using your work for commercial gain
4) allow anyone to display your original work, unaltered, with attribution, not for commercial gain.

The only difference between this CC license and standard "all rights reserved" is #4. The legal advantage to the CC system is that it allows you to quickly and easily generate the legalese defining this set of permissions without hiring a lawyer. This will not in any way change the term of copyright (life plus 75 years in the case of individual authorship), or limit your damages should your images be used in a non-licensed way.

From a practical standpoint, it means that you can't litigate against Joe Blogger for putting your image on his blog, provided he properly attributes it to you. Of course, the real question is, how many times have you had to litigate against Joe Blogger for this offense?

That being said, the only advantages to a CC license such as this are:

1) the possibility of additional exposure for your work (akin to EMI's recent decision to release DRM-free music online). If you're an established photographer, fully booked with a steady clientele, this is likely of no value to you.
2) the ethical statement that locking up more and more of our culture is a disservice to the public good and the next generation. This may or may not be something you believe; if it is not, then this is also of no value to you.

In which case, a CC license is not for you, and there's no reason to not stick with "all rights reserved."

The only point of this whole spiel, though, is that it isn't a choice between a CC license and copyright. The CC license is simply an expression of copyright protection.

Thank you, Control Group. The Creative Commons licenses are ALL copyright licenses; you're free to release your work under as many or as few licenses as you want. Anything I bother releasing to the public, unless it's specifically shot for a client, gets Creative Commons'd, with only attribution as a condition. It's an ethical thing for me: I'm not going to wave a pretty picture around in front of your face, but tell you you're only allowed to look...

What about the best part of (C): Exclusive rights, & First rights. Clients won't pay for images that may appear other places & detract from their message.

bieber wrote in post #3104325
I'm not going to wave a pretty picture around in front of your face, but tell you you're only allowed to look...

If that works for you great, I think everyone should do what they feel good about.

Not often I get singled out. I have broad shoulders so I don't mind.

To be honest I have not spent a great deal of time studying the subject in great detail. I started to read through the documentation today but there is alot there.

I just don't see an upside for me right now. I am comfortable where I am at and I now entertain a few requests each week on images and that is enough for me. Most of them revolve wanting something for nothing so the answer on those are real quick.

I have a large investment in this business in not only gear but the time and other associated costs. I don't see the need for me to let someone take one of my images under CC arrangements. I guess I am somewhat suspect of what their intentions really are. This is where I am at and if you want to do it, have at it but because I may elect not to does not make me wrong.

ssim wrote in post #3105541
If that works for you great, I think everyone should do what they feel good about.


Not often I get singled out. I have broad shoulders so I don't mind.

To be honest I have not spent a great deal of time studying the subject in great detail. I started to read through the documentation today but there is alot there.

I just don't see an upside for me right now. I am comfortable where I am at and I now entertain a few requests each week on images and that is enough for me. Most of them revolve wanting something for nothing so the answer on those are real quick.

I have a large investment in this business in not only gear but the time and other associated costs. I don't see the need for me to let someone take one of my images under CC arrangements. I guess I am somewhat suspect of what their intentions really are. This is where I am at and if you want to do it, have at it but because I may elect not to does not make me wrong.

You and I appear to be on the same page, Sheldon.

And with regard to my page on My Space, it's simply for advertising purposes. I don't really use it for photo "sharing."

If you are shooting specifically for exclusives then CC is not right for you. If you are shooting as a work for hire, then CC is not right for you. If you have a specific shot you think is newsworthy and you might get paid big time by giving someone an exclusive, then you'd be silly to release that one shot under CC. Creative Commons isnt all or nothing, you can choose a different license for every different shot and you can do all rights reserved on those you choose to keep private, but again putting them on any net enabled device is going to weaken your options anyway.

Thanks Control Group for more eloquently saying what I was trying to convey. I would have linked directly to the language from the source but creativecommons.org was down yesterday.

That's fine. It just seems to border on hypocritical to bag on Flickr which takes photographers rights very seriously and responds quickly when abuse is reported versus advertising your use of a service like myspace whose whole raison d'etre seems to be allowing people to advertise their personality by identifying with specific brands and ripping off commercial works for display in their own pages.

Gaping void seems to really nail down how I feel about myspace:
http://www.gapingvoid.​com …Type/archives/0​03861.html
http://www.gapingvoid.​com …Type/archives/0​03874.html

Agreed! It's all about choice! What works for you is obviously very different that what works for me. But consider this for a second: Should ALL your pictures be handled the same way?

What we had before CC was a one size fits all world, your choices were to retain 100% of your rights, to enter contracts with individuals to transfer some of your rights, or to give up 100% of your rights. That hardly worked well for the millions of people who aren't making a dime on any of their pictures but who want to share them in a limited way while leaving their options open should they later discover that their work has commercial value.

WITH CC there now exists a full spectrum of choices that can be applied down to the granularity of every single picture. Go from 100% locked down to 100% open with a smorgasbord of interesting choices you can make in between.

So even if you choose to not use CC for your most interesting work, might there be a subset that you could see yourself being a little more liberal with if it were to result in greater exposure? Even if the answer is no for you, for a great many people the answer is a resounding yes, and they didnt have that option without CC.